Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-11-08T21:26:35Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.
:First off, you need talk page permission if you're going to make massive changes on one of CP's most important articles. I re-inserted some of your edits, but you need talk page permission to go further and change the article's very tone and point of view. Second, are you a sock of Amorrow? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am almost certainly not apart of this sock of amorrow, what is an Amorrow anyway 1990s?--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 14:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::Amorrow is the user who started the discussion you're commenting in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::::Reeves, if your going to troll, you need an upgrade. Don't be so amatuerish about it. Show us something new and witty so we can develop appropriate countermeasures. You're obviously not stupid. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::::Not a Troll, just following guidelines to not start a new section unless it hasn't been posted--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 16:09, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::::::Like I am legit confused, During these last few Hours I get the feeling that you 1990s guy either think Im trying to wreck youre words or that I'm a troll. I also get the feeling that I am extremely unwelcome. Like is all this because I'm black. Because if that's the case Ill leave this site like real pronto.--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 16:26, 8 November 2018 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==
I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you?
I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice.
Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned?
The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns".
There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

:First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.

:I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.

:I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the [[Helsinki]] article, you are free to do so.

:I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.

:I hope all this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering.
I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out?
Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show?
How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there?
Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages?
Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest.
I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen
:Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
:You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <code><nowiki><ref>[source]</ref></nowiki></code>
:There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
:Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
:I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

== Five solas ==

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with [[Five Solas]]! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:I'll see what I can do. The [[Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor]] (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

==Contact==
I don't have yours, either. Use this: nobs315@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
:Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
==Capital Punishment==
By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."[[User:Tulip Festival|Tulip Festival]] ([[User talk:Tulip Festival|talk]]) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
:No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html][https://answersingenesis.org/culture/the-death-penalty-wdjb-not-wwjd/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS update ==

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project]]. Thank you for your additions to the list...my apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

== i try ==

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::See [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Tutoring avalible? By you? [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

== Logician account ==

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. [[User:Anaxagoras|Anaxagoras]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras|talk]]) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
:I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: [[Kavanaugh smear]] article name change ==

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

:::I have chimed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kavanaugh_smear&curid=150814&diff=1450439&oldid=1450438 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: Switzerland vs. Britain ==

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.

Gentlemen,

Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html industrious and wealthy Swiss], who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

=== Main page right post in question ===

'''The British recently had a hard''' time getting their trains to run on time.[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45572736]

According to [[Wikipedia]], "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't [[Britain]], the fountainhead of [[Darwinism]], compete with [[Switzerland]] which is known for having one of the highest rates of [[creationism]] [[per capita]] in Europe?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

==Formatting of quotes==

Thanks for the {{tl|cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome -- happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

== Trumpiantexan is a vandal ==

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

== Why you said this so.. ==

...'' I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite.'' It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
:Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== Cesar Sayoc Article==
Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the [[Lee Harvey Oswald]] article should be deleted immediately.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

==Pinging==
I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

== Troll ==

Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Feminism

2018-11-08T21:15:21Z

Reevestehsnek:

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

I am trying to make this page compatible with a little Amazon Alexa Mod I cooked up, so far when It reads it,
There were multiple spelling errors, and when she spoke it sounded more like a rant then an actual informative conservative essay. Also the bulleted list doesn't play and the alexia device just stops playing, I believe the hardware isn't used to bullet points not being with-in heading or heading font so the Device just tries to reload the text in pure html using Wikipedias default source php (which I deleted to make my own.)
I understand that I need to be of higher standing, so can someone edit the article so it doesn't sound like a gigantic rant without any sources.
--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] [[User talk:Reevestehsnek|Talk]] 10:59, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:Sorry, we don't change pages so Amazon Alexa handles them better. That's Alexa's problem, not ours. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:48, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I wasn't clear I made a mod for an alexa device that uses conservapedia as its source, but its obvi you don't care about all the hard hours of work it took to actual remove the php through bluetooth and rewrite the script using BSD.

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this article is no good, even though I wish it were true.
--[[User:corneliuscalvin|corneliuscalvin]] 7:56, 26 November 2012 (PDT)

:Can't talk now. of the World happening. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:01, 26 November 2012 (EST)

== No Christian feminism? ==

I think that this article would be served well if a section on [[Christian feminism]] was included. Maybe a new article on it would be better.[[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:That seems like a good idea, but an article on it would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view. But there's also the fact that the same term can have a different meaning for different people -- what one person considers Christian feminism can be completely different than what another person does. We would need to define the term clearly, but I think we'd be talking about second- and third-wave feminism, adherents of which have theologically and socially left-wing views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:47, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:::No, there is no requirement that a Conservapedia article discussing the topic of Christian feminism "would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view." There are no such requirements on content at Conservapedia, and no one, except perhaps Andy, has the authority to enforce such a requirement. All that is required is that "Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project". Though many of our members are not Christians and are not politically conservative, they are required to edit in a manner consistent with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. To require otherwise would turn this wiki into a Wikipedia-style "mobocracy" rather than a "best of the public" project.

:::The concept of feminism covers a lot of ground. There are conservative feminists, Christian feminists, and Republican feminists. Not all feminists subscribe to some of the silly excesses that one sometimes sees looking around on the internet and various media outlets. Many conservative feminists, for example, fully support encouraging girls to go into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.

:::So feel free to write sensible content on this topic. I look forward to reading it.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::::SamHB, they have found that promoting the idea that women are underrepresented in STEM fields and that this has to be corrected has the effect of telling women that STEM is not feminine/girly and thus women are more likely to avoid those fields. In other words, the policy is probably backfiring. See: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/how-promoting-stem-fields-women-can-backfire

::::Women tend to be more likely to be conformists and not mavericks.

::::Over and over again, liberals fail to take into account the unintended consequences of their social engineering! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::Once Christian denominations filly embrace the notion of female pastors, their memberships almost invariably spiral downward. That should surely be mentioned in relation to "Christian feminism".

::"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:12-13[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Mr. Guye was even talking about female pastors when he was talking about Christian feminism, just something akin to, say, the Suffragettes, many of whom were Christian women who would NEVER advocate the pill, let alone abortion. But yes, we probably should note that bit somewhere either way. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (EST)
::::What percentage of so-called "Christian feminists" believe that a wife is to obey her husband and that a husband is the head of the family? At least in its present form "Christian feminism" is just another endeavor to infect Christianity with unbiblical ideas. As far as the suffragette movement, I don't know if any of them were Christian women who held biblical Christianity views related to women. I do know that various suffragettes burned down churches.[https://www.christiantoday.com/article/suffrage-the-churchs-rocky-relationship-with-rebellion/67361.htm]

::::Christianity was at the forefront of various movements like abolition, child labor laws, etc. etc. Christendom is also known for its favorable views on the treatment of women (husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church, etc. etc.), but it is not known for leading the charge as far as feminism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2017 (EST)

:::::Well, I do know that Susan B. Anthony specifically condemned abortion and the pill and stated that would make women even more enslaved, and I do know that Christians also do not support abortion and the pill (in fact, among us Catholics, it's considered a mortal sin), so there's that to consider. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (EST)

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-11-08T21:10:01Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.
:First off, you need talk page permission if you're going to make massive changes on one of CP's most important articles. I re-inserted some of your edits, but you need talk page permission to go further and change the article's very tone and point of view. Second, are you a sock of Amorrow? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am almost certainly not apart of this sock of amorrow, what is an Amorrow anyway 1990s?--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 14:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::Amorrow is the user who started the discussion you're commenting in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::::Reeves, if your going to troll, you need an upgrade. Don't be so amatuerish about it. Show us something new and witty so we can develop appropriate countermeasures. You're obviously not stupid. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:31, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::::Not a Troll, just following guidelines to not start a new section unless it hasn't been posted--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 16:09, 8 November 2018 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==
I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you?
I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice.
Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned?
The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns".
There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

:First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.

:I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.

:I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the [[Helsinki]] article, you are free to do so.

:I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.

:I hope all this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering.
I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out?
Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show?
How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there?
Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages?
Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest.
I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen
:Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
:You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <code><nowiki><ref>[source]</ref></nowiki></code>
:There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
:Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
:I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

== Five solas ==

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with [[Five Solas]]! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:I'll see what I can do. The [[Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor]] (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

==Contact==
I don't have yours, either. Use this: nobs315@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
:Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
==Capital Punishment==
By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."[[User:Tulip Festival|Tulip Festival]] ([[User talk:Tulip Festival|talk]]) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
:No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html][https://answersingenesis.org/culture/the-death-penalty-wdjb-not-wwjd/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS update ==

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project]]. Thank you for your additions to the list...my apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

== i try ==

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::See [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Tutoring avalible? By you? [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

== Logician account ==

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. [[User:Anaxagoras|Anaxagoras]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras|talk]]) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
:I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: [[Kavanaugh smear]] article name change ==

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

:::I have chimed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kavanaugh_smear&curid=150814&diff=1450439&oldid=1450438 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: Switzerland vs. Britain ==

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.

Gentlemen,

Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html industrious and wealthy Swiss], who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

=== Main page right post in question ===

'''The British recently had a hard''' time getting their trains to run on time.[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45572736]

According to [[Wikipedia]], "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't [[Britain]], the fountainhead of [[Darwinism]], compete with [[Switzerland]] which is known for having one of the highest rates of [[creationism]] [[per capita]] in Europe?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

==Formatting of quotes==

Thanks for the {{tl|cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome -- happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

== Trumpiantexan is a vandal ==

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

== Why you said this so.. ==

...'' I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite.'' It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
:Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== Cesar Sayoc Article==
Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the [[Lee Harvey Oswald]] article should be deleted immediately.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

==Pinging==
I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

== Troll ==

Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Neoconservatism

2018-11-08T20:15:44Z

Reevestehsnek:

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Europe-based Neo-conservativism ==

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". [[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson|Njalsson]] of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism?
--[[User:ExFin|ExFin]] 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== I'm genuinely confused ==

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a [[conservative]]. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Neocons on Social Conservativism ==

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--[[User:jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== Neocons and [[George W. Bush]] ==

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush ''was'' a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

:No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
:: True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.[[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:::True, but by [[Election Day]] most [[conservatives]] were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of [[Daniel Pipes]] on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing ''against'' nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [http://www.danielpipes.org/1068/a-strongman-for-iraq] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [http://www.danielpipes.org/1281/let-iraqis-run-iraq]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." [[User:JasonNYC|JasonNYC]] 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. [[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

== Something critically wrong with this article ==
Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article [[Conservative]] accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

::Well stated indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete [[subversion]] of the [[Deep State]] to serve [[globalist]] interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

:::It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']] 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

This article might need to be looked at for in accurate information.
[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]][[User talk:Reevestehsnek]] 14:17, 8 November 2018 (EDT)
:No, I don't see anything inaccurate on this article. It's actually a much better description than found on many other places. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am sorry I should have been more clear; The last Section references Paul Joseph Watson and I don't have any sources to repudiate the claims of neocon meddling with-in the current white house. could you help me? best I could find was this dead link
::https://medium.com/suspended
::from this
::https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-syria.html {{unsigned|Reevestehsnek}}
:::It's pretty clear that neocons ''are'' trying to influence Trump and nullify his agenda, including some inside the White House. I don't think we should try to refute something when the evidence backs it up. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::::Not refuting I'm just looking for someone satisfy the statement of what paul has said. Do you know of any places that we can search.(Googles no good lol)
::::This is the best I could do
::::https://medium.com/suspended
::::from this
::::https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-
::::Do you know of any older articles that touch up on neo-cons during the obama era?? Cause all the sources I see during the Trump era are scrubbed clean.[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]][[User talk:Reevestehsnek]] 15:15, 8 November 2018 (EST)

== Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts? ==

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

::Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.

:::As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member state's sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in the 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars," yet France, the UK, and the US - allegedly democratic nations - waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.

:::So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.

:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based '''entirely''' around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.
::::Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.
::::The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?
::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.
::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.
::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.
:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.
::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.
::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::Let's say that the end goal is a federal Europe, which is what the globalists want. Throughout time, there have been conflicting definitions as to what exactly is Europe. Is it only Western Europe, which is the part of Europe that once ruled the world and spread Western ideas and culture around it? Or is it all of Europe, the continent.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the former answer to be correct, then no wonder they're allowing Eastern Europe to keep its sovereignty. They don't consider Eastern Europe to be Europe, so Eastern Europe is not supposed to be part of the equation.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-11-08T19:58:00Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.
:First off, you need talk page permission if you're going to make massive changes on one of CP's most important articles. I re-inserted some of your edits, but you need talk page permission to go further and change the article's very tone and point of view. Second, are you a sock of Amorrow? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am almost certainly not apart of this sock of amorrow, what is an Amorrow anyway 1990s?--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 14:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==
I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you?
I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice.
Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned?
The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns".
There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

:First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.

:I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.

:I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the [[Helsinki]] article, you are free to do so.

:I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.

:I hope all this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering.
I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out?
Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show?
How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there?
Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages?
Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest.
I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen
:Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
:You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <code><nowiki><ref>[source]</ref></nowiki></code>
:There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
:Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
:I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

== Five solas ==

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with [[Five Solas]]! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:I'll see what I can do. The [[Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor]] (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

==Contact==
I don't have yours, either. Use this: nobs315@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
:Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
==Capital Punishment==
By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."[[User:Tulip Festival|Tulip Festival]] ([[User talk:Tulip Festival|talk]]) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
:No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html][https://answersingenesis.org/culture/the-death-penalty-wdjb-not-wwjd/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS update ==

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project]]. Thank you for your additions to the list...my apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

== i try ==

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::See [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Tutoring avalible? By you? [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

== Logician account ==

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. [[User:Anaxagoras|Anaxagoras]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras|talk]]) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
:I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: [[Kavanaugh smear]] article name change ==

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

:::I have chimed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kavanaugh_smear&curid=150814&diff=1450439&oldid=1450438 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: Switzerland vs. Britain ==

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.

Gentlemen,

Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html industrious and wealthy Swiss], who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

=== Main page right post in question ===

'''The British recently had a hard''' time getting their trains to run on time.[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45572736]

According to [[Wikipedia]], "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't [[Britain]], the fountainhead of [[Darwinism]], compete with [[Switzerland]] which is known for having one of the highest rates of [[creationism]] [[per capita]] in Europe?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

==Formatting of quotes==

Thanks for the {{tl|cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome -- happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

== Trumpiantexan is a vandal ==

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

== Why you said this so.. ==

...'' I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite.'' It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
:Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== Cesar Sayoc Article==
Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the [[Lee Harvey Oswald]] article should be deleted immediately.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

==Pinging==
I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

== Troll ==

Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-11-08T19:57:16Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.
:First off, you need talk page permission if you're going to make massive changes on one of CP's most important articles. I re-inserted some of your edits, but you need talk page permission to go further and change the article's very tone and point of view. Second, are you a sock of Amorrow? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am almost certainly not apart of this sock of amorrow, what is an Amorrow anyway 1990s?
--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] ([[User talk:Reevestehsnek|talk]] 14:58, 8 November 2018 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==
I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you?
I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice.
Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned?
The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns".
There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

:First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.

:I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.

:I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the [[Helsinki]] article, you are free to do so.

:I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.

:I hope all this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering.
I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out?
Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show?
How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there?
Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages?
Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest.
I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen
:Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
:You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <code><nowiki><ref>[source]</ref></nowiki></code>
:There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
:Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
:I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

== Five solas ==

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with [[Five Solas]]! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:I'll see what I can do. The [[Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor]] (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

==Contact==
I don't have yours, either. Use this: nobs315@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
:Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
==Capital Punishment==
By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."[[User:Tulip Festival|Tulip Festival]] ([[User talk:Tulip Festival|talk]]) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
:No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html][https://answersingenesis.org/culture/the-death-penalty-wdjb-not-wwjd/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS update ==

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project]]. Thank you for your additions to the list...my apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

== i try ==

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::See [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Tutoring avalible? By you? [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

== Logician account ==

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. [[User:Anaxagoras|Anaxagoras]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras|talk]]) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
:I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: [[Kavanaugh smear]] article name change ==

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

:::I have chimed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kavanaugh_smear&curid=150814&diff=1450439&oldid=1450438 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: Switzerland vs. Britain ==

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.

Gentlemen,

Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html industrious and wealthy Swiss], who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

=== Main page right post in question ===

'''The British recently had a hard''' time getting their trains to run on time.[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45572736]

According to [[Wikipedia]], "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't [[Britain]], the fountainhead of [[Darwinism]], compete with [[Switzerland]] which is known for having one of the highest rates of [[creationism]] [[per capita]] in Europe?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

==Formatting of quotes==

Thanks for the {{tl|cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome -- happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

== Trumpiantexan is a vandal ==

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

== Why you said this so.. ==

...'' I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite.'' It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
:Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== Cesar Sayoc Article==
Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the [[Lee Harvey Oswald]] article should be deleted immediately.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

==Pinging==
I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

== Troll ==

Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Neoconservatism

2018-11-08T19:38:48Z

Reevestehsnek:

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Europe-based Neo-conservativism ==

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". [[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson|Njalsson]] of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism?
--[[User:ExFin|ExFin]] 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== I'm genuinely confused ==

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a [[conservative]]. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Neocons on Social Conservativism ==

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--[[User:jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== Neocons and [[George W. Bush]] ==

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush ''was'' a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

:No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
:: True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.[[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:::True, but by [[Election Day]] most [[conservatives]] were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of [[Daniel Pipes]] on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing ''against'' nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [http://www.danielpipes.org/1068/a-strongman-for-iraq] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [http://www.danielpipes.org/1281/let-iraqis-run-iraq]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." [[User:JasonNYC|JasonNYC]] 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. [[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

== Something critically wrong with this article ==
Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article [[Conservative]] accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

::Well stated indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete [[subversion]] of the [[Deep State]] to serve [[globalist]] interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

:::It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']] 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

This article might need to be looked at for in accurate information.
[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]][[User talk:Reevestehsnek]] 14:17, 8 November 2018 (EDT)
:No, I don't see anything inaccurate on this article. It's actually a much better description than found on many other places. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am sorry I should have been more clear; The last Section references Paul Joseph Watson and I don't have any sources to repudiate the claims of neocon meddling with-in the current white house. could you help me? best I could find was this dead link
::https://medium.com/suspended
::from this
::https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-syria.html

== Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts? ==

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

::Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.

:::As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member state's sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in the 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars," yet France, the UK, and the US - allegedly democratic nations - waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.

:::So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.

:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based '''entirely''' around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.
::::Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.
::::The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?
::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.
::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.
::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.
:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.
::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.
::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::Let's say that the end goal is a federal Europe, which is what the globalists want. Throughout time, there have been conflicting definitions as to what exactly is Europe. Is it only Western Europe, which is the part of Europe that once ruled the world and spread Western ideas and culture around it? Or is it all of Europe, the continent.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the former answer to be correct, then no wonder they're allowing Eastern Europe to keep its sovereignty. They don't consider Eastern Europe to be Europe, so Eastern Europe is not supposed to be part of the equation.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Neoconservatism

2018-11-08T19:37:59Z

Reevestehsnek:

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Europe-based Neo-conservativism ==

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". [[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson|Njalsson]] of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism?
--[[User:ExFin|ExFin]] 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== I'm genuinely confused ==

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a [[conservative]]. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Neocons on Social Conservativism ==

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--[[User:jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== Neocons and [[George W. Bush]] ==

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush ''was'' a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

:No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
:: True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.[[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:::True, but by [[Election Day]] most [[conservatives]] were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of [[Daniel Pipes]] on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing ''against'' nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [http://www.danielpipes.org/1068/a-strongman-for-iraq] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [http://www.danielpipes.org/1281/let-iraqis-run-iraq]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." [[User:JasonNYC|JasonNYC]] 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. [[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

== Something critically wrong with this article ==
Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article [[Conservative]] accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

::Well stated indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete [[subversion]] of the [[Deep State]] to serve [[globalist]] interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

:::It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']] 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

This article might need to be looked at for in accurate information.
[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]][[User talk:Reevestehsnek]] 14:17, 8 November 2018 (EDT)
:No, I don't see anything inaccurate on this article. It's actually a much better description than found on many other places. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::I am sorry I should have been more clear; The last Section references Paul Joseph Watson and I don't have any sources to repudiate the claims of neocon meddling with-in the current white house. could you help me? best I could find was this dead link
https://medium.com/suspended
from this
https://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-pushes-back-against-neo-con-plan-to-invade-syria.html

== Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts? ==

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

::Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.

:::As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member state's sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in the 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars," yet France, the UK, and the US - allegedly democratic nations - waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.

:::So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.

:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based '''entirely''' around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.
::::Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.
::::The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?
::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.
::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.
::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.
:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.
::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.
::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::Let's say that the end goal is a federal Europe, which is what the globalists want. Throughout time, there have been conflicting definitions as to what exactly is Europe. Is it only Western Europe, which is the part of Europe that once ruled the world and spread Western ideas and culture around it? Or is it all of Europe, the continent.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the former answer to be correct, then no wonder they're allowing Eastern Europe to keep its sovereignty. They don't consider Eastern Europe to be Europe, so Eastern Europe is not supposed to be part of the equation.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Neoconservatism

2018-11-08T19:19:40Z

Reevestehsnek:

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Europe-based Neo-conservativism ==

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". [[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson|Njalsson]] of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism?
--[[User:ExFin|ExFin]] 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== I'm genuinely confused ==

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a [[conservative]]. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Neocons on Social Conservativism ==

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--[[User:jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== Neocons and [[George W. Bush]] ==

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush ''was'' a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

:No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)
:: True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.[[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:::True, but by [[Election Day]] most [[conservatives]] were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of [[Daniel Pipes]] on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing ''against'' nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [http://www.danielpipes.org/1068/a-strongman-for-iraq] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [http://www.danielpipes.org/1281/let-iraqis-run-iraq]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." [[User:JasonNYC|JasonNYC]] 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. [[User:Benny1986|Benny1986]] 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

== Something critically wrong with this article ==
Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
:It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article [[Conservative]] accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

::Well stated indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete [[subversion]] of the [[Deep State]] to serve [[globalist]] interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

:::It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']] 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

This article might need to be looked at for in accurate information.
[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]][[User talk:Reevestehsnek]] 14:17, 8 November 2018 (EDT)

== Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts? ==

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)
:Put the crack pipe down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that '''will''' be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are '''never''' able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

::Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

::Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

::Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that state's borders.

:::As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member state's sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in the 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars," yet France, the UK, and the US - allegedly democratic nations - waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.

:::So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.

:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based '''entirely''' around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.
::::Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.
::::The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?
::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.
::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.
::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's already happened at a technical and economic level, now its just a matter of gaining approval from elected parliaments for minor tweaks in sharing the cost burdens.
:::::Sure, now its a political and emotional issue. But citizens of a democratic state don't have the luxury of opting out of paying taxes to shoulder their defense burdens.
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.
::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.
::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Starikov makes an interesting point: why are European borders open to Syrians and Africans, but closed to refugees from Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Considering that the Deep State is left-wing globalist, perhaps a combination of typical left-wing racism and the realization that Middle Eastern and African refugees so vastly outnumber Ukrainian refugees that Middle Eastern and African refugees can cause the desired chaos without the Ukrainian refugees. Pragmatic racism, I would call it. And that's assuming that the EU recently changed its policies to keep Ukrainian refugees from coming in, because I know for a fact Ukrainian refugees '''have''' been let in, particularly in Poland. What source do you have that shows a shift in such a policy? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 9:53, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::::::Look closer. Poland is allowed to retain its sovereignty and sick the dogs on refugees, as Starikov points out, cause it has a border with Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:43, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why would the globalists openly allow Poland (and presumably the other Visegrad states) to keep its sovereignty while not allowing Western Europe to do the same? If that's the case, there are game-changing implications.

:::::::::::Let's say that the end goal is a federal Europe, which is what the globalists want. Throughout time, there have been conflicting definitions as to what exactly is Europe. Is it only Western Europe, which is the part of Europe that once ruled the world and spread Western ideas and culture around it? Or is it all of Europe, the continent.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the former answer to be correct, then no wonder they're allowing Eastern Europe to keep its sovereignty. They don't consider Eastern Europe to be Europe, so Eastern Europe is not supposed to be part of the equation.
:::::::::::If the globalists consider the latter answer to be correct, then what is taking place in Eastern Europe is a matter of natural resistance to globalist policies that is effective due to cultural differences with Western Europe.

:::::::::::But let's assume for a moment that the migrant crisis is indeed part of a grand conspiracy to prevent the emergence of a Western European hegemon. Does that make the Visegrad states false opposition? Does that make people like Orban and Duda globalist proxies who are in on the alleged conspiracy to destroy Western Europe? What about Trump and Farage? Are they false opposition as well? --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Antifa

2018-11-08T18:42:36Z

Reevestehsnek:

[[File:Anti-Trump anarchists, 2017.jpg|thumb|250px|Antifa anarchists protesting Trump on Inauguration Day 2017]]
The '''"Antifa"''' (short for "Anti-fascist action"), also known as the '''ARA''' (short for "Anti-Racist Action") is a violent group of militant far-leftists that seek political and social change, by means of mayhem, direct action and civil unrest with-in America and most of Western Europe. Despite its name, the Antifa movement is itself a [[fascism|fascist]] and [[Liberal intolerance|intolerant]] hate group, even using in its speeches direct quotations from [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMAp8kXWrc</ref><ref>Knighton, Tom (July 10, 2017). [https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/10/anti-fascists-applaud-speech-made-completely-of-hitler-quotes/ 'Anti-Fascists' Applaud Speech Made Completely of Hitler Quotes]. ''PJ Media''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

==Description==
In the [[United States]], they rose up at the [[University of California]], Berkeley in response to [[Democrat]]s losing the [[2016 U.S. Presidential election]]. They claim that those individuals that support President [[Donald Trump]] and other conservatives are "[[Nazi]]s". In Europe, they claim that supporters of right-wing, anti-establishment figures such as [[Marine Le Pen]] in [[France]]<ref>Hoft, Jim (April 23, 2017). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/far-left-antifa-thugs-riot-paris-french-election-results-announced/ Far Left Antifa Thugs Riot in Paris After French Election Results Announced]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/20/pics-violent-anti-fascist-march-on-le-pen-rally-before-french-election/ PICS: Violent ‘Anti-Fascist’ March on Le Pen Rally Before French Election]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/24/french-presidential-election-leftist-protesters-grow-violent-after-results-come-in.html French presidential election: Leftist protesters grow violent after results come in]. ''Fox News''. April 24, 2017. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref> or the [[Alternative for Germany]]<ref>Montgomery, Jack (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/22/far-left-antifa-protestors-try-shut-populist-afd-convention-germany-injure-police-officers/ Far-Left Antifa ‘Protestors’ Attack Populist AfD Convention In Germany; Injure Police Officers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> are "fascists" and "Nazis." Antifa groups have targeted [[Lega Nord]] in [[Italy]].<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (August 16, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/16/far-left-anarchist-extremists-take-credit-for-bombing-italian-populist-party-office/ Far-Left Anarchist Extremists Take Credit For Bombing Italian Populist Party Office]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 16, 2018.</ref>

They dress in all black, wear black masks to hide their identities and attempt to disrupt rallies that are held in support of Trump. They use pepper spray on unsuspecting people, throw rocks, bricks, bottles, cement-filled soda cans, balloons filled with their own waste, punches, M-80s, march with flags and clubs, and commit [[vandalism]] and other criminal acts. They are militant, far-Left extremists that are a product of far-Left ideology, education, and funding.

The Antifa does not support the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, as seen in their illegal shutting down of scheduled conservative speakers on college campuses.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 20, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/antifa-rise-after-charlottesville-alarms-free-spee/ Rise of antifa after violence in Charlottesville alarms free-speech advocates]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref> Its members have chanted support for the destruction of the United States, along with all national [[border]]s.<ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-chants-death-to-america-no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all/ Watch – Antifa Chants Death to America: ‘No Borders! No Wall! No USA at All!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 12, 2018.</ref>

Some [[witch]]es and practicers of the [[occult]] who support [[left-wing]] policies have described themselves as "Antifa witches."<ref>Jasper, William F. (October 26, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/30460-antifa-witches-a-glimpse-into-the-source-of-the-demonic-rage-surging-about-us “Antifa Witches”: A Glimpse Into the Source of the Demonic Rage Surging About Us]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 26, 2018.</ref>

==Support from "mainstream" liberals==
Many in the leftist [[mainstream media]] applaud the Antifa's stance as they align with their #Resist agenda,<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/anti-fascist-activists-are-fighting-the-alt-right-in-the-streets/ Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets, TheNation.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/video-richard-spencer-punch-antifa-fascism The Long History of "Nazi Punching" MotherJones.com]</ref> and they have not taken a strong and clear stance against Antifa violence.<ref>Greenwood, Max (August 31, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348777-right-accuses-left-of-hypocrisy-on-antifa Right accuses left of hypocrisy on antifa]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> [[Facebook]] permits them to have a page to rally support. Political figures in the U.S. Democrat Party and liberal European parties refuse to condemn their actions. There has been no condemnation of this group or its actions from California Governor [[Jerry Brown]]. Berkeley, California mayor Jesse Arreguín (who has ties to far-Left anarchist group By Any Means Necessary<ref name="Berkeley Riots">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/25/uc-berkeley-riots-violence-looms-as-mayor-questioned-over-ties-to-extremist-group.html UC Berkeley riots: Violence looms as mayor questioned over ties to extremist group]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 25, 2017.</ref>) has illegally ordered the city's police department to stand down while Antifa violence unfolds, which has caused a rift between the Berkeley Police and Arreguín.<ref name="Berkeley Riots"/> Likewise, Michael Signer, the Democrat mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, illegally ordered a stand-down for the city's police department to allow Antifa to engage in a violent riot with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in what is widely suspected to be a Democrat-staged false flag operation.<ref>[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2017/08/18/accountability/news-media/charlottesville-real-battle/ Charlottesville: The Real Battle]</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/is-mcauliffe-to-blame-for-charlottesville-bloody-violence/ Is McAuliffe to blame for Charlottesville bloody violence?] at WorldNetDaily</ref> While Antifa tries to proclaim they fight against who they claim are "fascists" (erroneously lumping in the [[Alt-right]] and conservatives with legitimate fascists like Nazis and white supremacists), Antifa is, in fact, fascist and Nazi-like themselves in every aspect, being the very thing they claim to fight against. A quote, falsely attributed to [[Winston Churchill]], is still correct in summing up this group of thugs, "When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism."<ref>http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-quotes-from-winston-churchill-that-are-totally-fake-1790585636</ref> [[File:19685774_1492357004.9813.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Widely viewed picture showing Antifa supporter nicknamed "Moldylocks" getting punched in the face.]]

{{cquote| Antifascist Action focuses on promotional, informative and practical ways of struggle against all authoritarian ideologies and groups promoting any kind of oppression, particularly against Neo-Nazism and right wing radicals.}}

Numerous liberals, such as Dartmouth professor Mark Bray, have described Antifa's violence as a "positive" thing, casting it as necessary for a greater good – "combating the far right."<ref>Ernst, Douglas (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/mark-bray-dartmouth-professor-calls-vital-antifa-v/ Dartmouth professor calls Antifa violence ‘vital’ form of ‘collective self-defense’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref> House Democrat minority leader [[Nancy Pelosi]] first condemned Antifa violence only in August 2017.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/29/nancy-pelosi-finally-condemns-antifa-berkeley-viol/ Nancy Pelosi condemns antifa for first time as radical leftists wear out welcome]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref><ref>Richardson, Valerie (September 13, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/antifa-protest-of-ben-shapiro-looms-at-berkeley/ Antifa violence splits left as another major protest looms at Berkeley]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 15, 2017.</ref> [[Tim Kaine]] refused to condemn Antifa.<ref>Kew, Ben (September 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/08/tim-kaine-refuses-to-condemn-antifa-dont-like-broad-brushes/ Tim Kaine Refuses to Condemn Antifa: ‘Don’t Like Broad Brushes’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 8, 2017.</ref>

Mainstream media outlets promoted the false claim that violent left-wingers user their violence against conservatives to bring about "peace."<ref>Starr, Penny (August 19, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/19/cnn-normalizes-antifa-leftists-seek-peace-through-violence/ CNN Normalizes Antifa: Leftists ‘Seek Peace Through Violence’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 19, 2017.</ref> Chuck Todd of NBC was criticized by conservatives for asking "softball" questions when interviewing Antifa sympathizers.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/chuck-todd-under-fire-for-softball-interviews-with-antifa-ally.html Chuck Todd under fire for 'softball' interviews with Antifa ally]. ''Fox News''. August 21, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

On August 28, 2017, [[Tucker Carlson]] pointed out on his show that the Antifa is effectively the militant wing of the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>[https://www.redstate.com/terichristoph/2017/08/29/tucker-right-antifa-militant-wing-democrat-party/ Tucker Is Right: ‘Antifa’ IS The Militant Wing Of The Democrat Party] ''RedState''. August 29, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref>

[[Wikipedia]] editors have downplayed Antifa's violence and far-left-wing ideology and portrayed it favorably.<ref>Adler, T.D. (August 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/ Wikipedia Editors Seek to Downplay Antifa Violence And Far-Left Ideology]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], which has labeled numerous mainstream conservative organizations as "hate groups" but is itself a hate group in its own right, has refused to label Antifa a hate group.<ref>Nelson, Steve (September 3, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/southern-poverty-law-center-condemns-antifa-but-wont-call-hate-group/article/2633252 Southern Poverty Law Center condemns antifa, but won't call hate group]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref>

In October 2018, [[Portland]] mayor Ted Wheeler mayor defended his own decision to let Antifa block traffic and harass drivers and to block the police from intervening.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (October 14, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/ted-wheeler-portland-mayor-stands-decision-allow-a/ Portland mayor stands by decision to allow Antifa to block traffic, hassle motorists]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 14, 2018.</ref><ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (October 15, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/30334-portland-mayor-lets-the-goons-rule-as-anti-trump-violence-escalates Portland Mayor Lets the Goons Rule as Anti-Trump Violence Escalates]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 15, 2018.</ref>

=="Antifa" violence and criminal behavior==
{{See also|Left-wing violence in the Trump era}}
The Antifa claims that its violence is necessary and legitimate to use in order to stop those who they believe to be "fascists" and "authoritarians."<ref>Williams, Katie Bo (September 14, 2017). [https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary Antifa activists say violence is necessary]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

Like the [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement prior, Antifa is establishing branches in cities across the country. By their actions,<ref>O'Reilly, Andrew (August 30, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30/antifa-violence-leaves-leftists-to-question-whether-movement-hurts-or-helps.html Antifa violence leaves leftists to question whether movement hurts or helps]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref> people are demanding the group be labeled a domestic terrorist organization by the government. [[File:C9vi9oXW0AEQy6v.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Picture showing Trump supporter nicknamed Based Stickman giving a wedgie to an Antifa protester.]] After previous Trump rallies were assaulted, right-wingers came prepared at the next rally and thoroughly embarrassed Antifa, pushing back hard. Assaults were widely viewed on [[social media]]. Antifa radicals tried to garner sympathy by establishing a GoFundMe.com account. With politicians and the liberal media largely ignoring the violence, it is only a matter of time before somebody dies as a result of all the hate, anger and criminal behavior being displayed by Antifa.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/antifa-leftist-terror-group-selling-concealed-knives-slicing-conservatives-website/ ANTIFA Leftist Group Is Selling Concealed Knives On Their Website For Slicing Conservatives] at the Gateway Pundit</ref>

Antifa groups have used violence in its [[anti-Trump]] demonstrations to the point where police in riot gear were needed, and protestors have used gas canisters and rocks.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/protesters-at-trumps-phoenix-rally-used-gas-canisters-rocks-to-assault-police.html Protesters at Trump's Phoenix rally used gas canisters, rocks to assault police]. ''Fox News''. August 23, 2017. Retrieved August 23, 2017.</ref>

In June 2017, an Antifa website encouraged physical violence against Trump supporters, capitalists and others who hold conservative-leaning views.<ref>Cheong, Ian Miles (June 19, 2017). [https://heatst.com/culture-wars/antifa-website-promotes-all-manner-of-physical-violence-against-trump-supporters-and-capitalists/ Antifa Website Encourages ‘All Manner of Physical Violence’ Against Trump Supporters and Capitalists]. ''Heat Street''. Retrieved June 20, 2017.</ref>

Since 2016, the FBI and DHS warned local governments of Antifa violence and its increasing occurrences, and they labeled its activities as "domestic terrorist violence."<ref>Multiple references:
*Suarez Sang, Lucia I. (September 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/03/fbi-dhs-warned-increasingly-violent-antifa-clashes-in-2016-documents-show.html FBI, DHS warned of increasingly violent Antifa clashes in 2016, documents show]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.
*Meyer, Josh (September 1, 2017). [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html FBI and Homeland Security deem antifa 'domestic terrorists' as they warn of escalating violence between the left and white nationalists]. ''Daily Mail''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.</ref> The [[New Jersey]] State Office of Homeland Security has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist group.<ref>[https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa Anarchist Extremists: Antifa, Dept of Homeland Security, June 12th, 2017]</ref>

In a major August 2018 protest in Washington, D.C., Antifa members threatened and physically attacked the police,<ref>Multiple references:
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-mob-pepper-sprayed-after-attacking-police-move-back/ Watch – Antifa Mob Pepper Sprayed After Attacking Police: ‘Move Back!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-launches-fireworks-fck-police/ Watch: Antifa Launches Fireworks at Police, Chants ‘F*ck the Police!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Rodriguez, Katherine (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-activists-threaten-cops-without-badge/ WATCH: Antifa Activists Threaten Cops: ‘Without That Badge You a B**** and a Half!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/video-antifa-secret-service-agents-clash-white-house/ Video: Antifa, Secret Service Agents Clash Near White House]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Kirkwood2018">Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29773-antifa-goons-attack-cops-in-dc-charlottesville-want-to-kill-trump Antifa Goons Attack Cops in D.C. and Charlottesville; Want to Kill Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Williams2018">Williams, Jennifer (August 12, 2018). [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/12/17681986/antifa-leftist-violence-clashes-protests-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC]. ''Vox''. Retrieved August 13, 2018. See also:
*Nash, Charlie (August 13, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/13/huffpost-extremism-reporter-attacks-news-outlets-for-covering-antifa-violence/ Far Left Attacks Vox for Reporting that Antifa Attacked Journalists]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 14, 2018.</ref> as well as uninvolved bystanders including mainstream media journalists.<ref name="Williams2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018">Kraychik, Robert (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/antifa-assault-photographer-in-dc-get-the-f-out-of-here/ WATCH: Antifa Assault Photographer in DC: ‘Get the F*** Out of Here!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-shouts-down-usa-today-reporter-you-dont-even-know-who-the-fck-we-are/ Watch – Antifa Shouts Down USA Today Reporter: ‘You Don’t Even Know Who the F*ck We Are!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref> They also carried signs promoting violence against people whose ideas they oppose,<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018"/> and many of them called for murdering the president.<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/>

Some Antifa members, such as California philosophy professor Eric Clanton, received extremely lenient sentences compared to the violent crimes they committed as Antifa activists.<ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29779-antifa-thug-skates-on-felony-assault-charges-sentenced-to-probation Antifa Thug Skates on Felony Assault Charges; Sentenced to Probation]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref>

==History==
:{{See also|Left Wing Terrorism in the United States}}
The modern re-incarnation of Antifa was founded in 1988 in Minneapolis, Minnesota as well as Toronto, Canada to counteract white supremacist groups and Neo-Nazi groups.

The organization can be traced to the “[[united front]]” of the [[Soviet Union]]’s Communist International ([[Comintern]]) during the Third World Congress in [[Moscow]] in June and July 1921. The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite [[communist]] [[revolution]]. The Soviets believed that following [[Russia]]’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to [[Germany]], since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).

It was at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922 that the plan took shape. Moscow formed the slogan “To the Masses” for its united front strategy and sought to join together the various communist and workers’ parties of Germany under a single ideological banner that it controlled. Both the communist and fascist systems were based on [[collectivism]] and [[economic planning|state-planned economies]]. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and [[genocide]]. In addition, the term "anti-fascism" was originally used by Stalin and the USSR prior to and during World War II as part of propaganda purposes to make the USSR seem mainstream by comparison to Nazi Germany.<ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-you-should-never-use-the-term-anti-fascist/article/2632847</ref><ref>Davies, Norman: ''No Simple Victory'' "Anti-Fascism" did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance....It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism. What is more, it opened up a wonderful arena for the activities of disciplined activists, whose training in the Leninist techniques of splitting and dividing adversaries would run rings round wooly intellectuals....If you were a French trade unionist, tired of the wrangles of the Left, or a British Empire loyalist baffled by the complexities of modern politics or a Christian peace worker hoping to avoid another war, anti-Fascism was for you! Only in the background was the unspoken dialect that, if Fascism was to be Bad, the Good had to lie with the originator of anti-Fascism -- Joseph Stalin's USSR. </ref>

The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “[[capitalism]].”

While leftist extremists claim to be fighting “fascism” while launching their attacks on other groups, the report states the term “fascism” has a double meaning under the extreme-left ideology, indicating the “fight against the capitalist system.” Antifascism is a strategy, not an ideology. They argue that the capitalist state produces fascism, or at least tolerates it. Therefore, anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities.<ref>https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/service/glossar/_lA#antifaschismus </ref>

An Antifa group, "Refuse Fascism," organized what it announced would be a series of major rallies in U.S. cities that would last until President Trump and Vice President Pence stepped down.<ref>Parke, Caleb (November 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/antifa-apocalypse-anarchist-groups-plan-to-overthrow-trump-regime-starts-saturday.html Antifa apocalypse? Anarchist group's plan to overthrow Trump 'regime' starts Saturday]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref> Rather than millions of people, as it intended, the protests saw very low turnout.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (November 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/04/antifail-low-turnouts-at-multi-city-antifa-apocalypse/ ANTIFAIL: Low Turnouts At Nationwide ‘Refuse Fascism’ Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref><ref>Parke, Caleb (November 7, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/07/antifa-leftwing-anti-trump-protests-nationwide-turned-out-to-be-dud.html Antifa, leftwing anti-Trump protests nationwide turned out to be dud]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 7, 2017.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Domestic terrorism]]
*[[Left-wing violence in the Trump era]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

== External links ==
* [http://antifa.cz/ European website]
* [http://antifaunited.bigcartel.com/ American website not yet live]
* [https://www.facebook.com/pg/ANTIFA.CZ/about/?ref=page_internal Facebook page]
* [http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-shadowy-extremist-group-behind-the-anti-trump-riots/ The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ue4lSgyHs Video of Antifa harassing a man (Jason Kessler) and others while generally trying to hide their faces from the camera]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchism]]
[[Category:Snowflakes]]

Antifa

2018-11-08T18:42:00Z

Reevestehsnek:

[[File:Anti-Trump anarchists, 2017.jpg|thumb|250px|Antifa anarchists protesting Trump on Inauguration Day 2017]]
The '''"Antifa"''' (short for "Anti-fascist action"), also known as the '''ARA''' (short for "Anti-Racist Action") is a violent group of militant far-leftists that seek political and social change, by means of mayhem, direct action and civil Unrest with-in America and most of Western Europe. Despite its name, the Antifa movement is itself a [[fascism|fascist]] and [[Liberal intolerance|intolerant]] hate group, even using in its speeches direct quotations from [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMAp8kXWrc</ref><ref>Knighton, Tom (July 10, 2017). [https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/10/anti-fascists-applaud-speech-made-completely-of-hitler-quotes/ 'Anti-Fascists' Applaud Speech Made Completely of Hitler Quotes]. ''PJ Media''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

==Description==
In the [[United States]], they rose up at the [[University of California]], Berkeley in response to [[Democrat]]s losing the [[2016 U.S. Presidential election]]. They claim that those individuals that support President [[Donald Trump]] and other conservatives are "[[Nazi]]s". In Europe, they claim that supporters of right-wing, anti-establishment figures such as [[Marine Le Pen]] in [[France]]<ref>Hoft, Jim (April 23, 2017). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/far-left-antifa-thugs-riot-paris-french-election-results-announced/ Far Left Antifa Thugs Riot in Paris After French Election Results Announced]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/20/pics-violent-anti-fascist-march-on-le-pen-rally-before-french-election/ PICS: Violent ‘Anti-Fascist’ March on Le Pen Rally Before French Election]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/24/french-presidential-election-leftist-protesters-grow-violent-after-results-come-in.html French presidential election: Leftist protesters grow violent after results come in]. ''Fox News''. April 24, 2017. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref> or the [[Alternative for Germany]]<ref>Montgomery, Jack (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/22/far-left-antifa-protestors-try-shut-populist-afd-convention-germany-injure-police-officers/ Far-Left Antifa ‘Protestors’ Attack Populist AfD Convention In Germany; Injure Police Officers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> are "fascists" and "Nazis." Antifa groups have targeted [[Lega Nord]] in [[Italy]].<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (August 16, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/16/far-left-anarchist-extremists-take-credit-for-bombing-italian-populist-party-office/ Far-Left Anarchist Extremists Take Credit For Bombing Italian Populist Party Office]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 16, 2018.</ref>

They dress in all black, wear black masks to hide their identities and attempt to disrupt rallies that are held in support of Trump. They use pepper spray on unsuspecting people, throw rocks, bricks, bottles, cement-filled soda cans, balloons filled with their own waste, punches, M-80s, march with flags and clubs, and commit [[vandalism]] and other criminal acts. They are militant, far-Left extremists that are a product of far-Left ideology, education, and funding.

The Antifa does not support the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, as seen in their illegal shutting down of scheduled conservative speakers on college campuses.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 20, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/antifa-rise-after-charlottesville-alarms-free-spee/ Rise of antifa after violence in Charlottesville alarms free-speech advocates]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref> Its members have chanted support for the destruction of the United States, along with all national [[border]]s.<ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-chants-death-to-america-no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all/ Watch – Antifa Chants Death to America: ‘No Borders! No Wall! No USA at All!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 12, 2018.</ref>

Some [[witch]]es and practicers of the [[occult]] who support [[left-wing]] policies have described themselves as "Antifa witches."<ref>Jasper, William F. (October 26, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/30460-antifa-witches-a-glimpse-into-the-source-of-the-demonic-rage-surging-about-us “Antifa Witches”: A Glimpse Into the Source of the Demonic Rage Surging About Us]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 26, 2018.</ref>

==Support from "mainstream" liberals==
Many in the leftist [[mainstream media]] applaud the Antifa's stance as they align with their #Resist agenda,<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/anti-fascist-activists-are-fighting-the-alt-right-in-the-streets/ Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets, TheNation.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/video-richard-spencer-punch-antifa-fascism The Long History of "Nazi Punching" MotherJones.com]</ref> and they have not taken a strong and clear stance against Antifa violence.<ref>Greenwood, Max (August 31, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348777-right-accuses-left-of-hypocrisy-on-antifa Right accuses left of hypocrisy on antifa]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> [[Facebook]] permits them to have a page to rally support. Political figures in the U.S. Democrat Party and liberal European parties refuse to condemn their actions. There has been no condemnation of this group or its actions from California Governor [[Jerry Brown]]. Berkeley, California mayor Jesse Arreguín (who has ties to far-Left anarchist group By Any Means Necessary<ref name="Berkeley Riots">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/25/uc-berkeley-riots-violence-looms-as-mayor-questioned-over-ties-to-extremist-group.html UC Berkeley riots: Violence looms as mayor questioned over ties to extremist group]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 25, 2017.</ref>) has illegally ordered the city's police department to stand down while Antifa violence unfolds, which has caused a rift between the Berkeley Police and Arreguín.<ref name="Berkeley Riots"/> Likewise, Michael Signer, the Democrat mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, illegally ordered a stand-down for the city's police department to allow Antifa to engage in a violent riot with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in what is widely suspected to be a Democrat-staged false flag operation.<ref>[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2017/08/18/accountability/news-media/charlottesville-real-battle/ Charlottesville: The Real Battle]</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/is-mcauliffe-to-blame-for-charlottesville-bloody-violence/ Is McAuliffe to blame for Charlottesville bloody violence?] at WorldNetDaily</ref> While Antifa tries to proclaim they fight against who they claim are "fascists" (erroneously lumping in the [[Alt-right]] and conservatives with legitimate fascists like Nazis and white supremacists), Antifa is, in fact, fascist and Nazi-like themselves in every aspect, being the very thing they claim to fight against. A quote, falsely attributed to [[Winston Churchill]], is still correct in summing up this group of thugs, "When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism."<ref>http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-quotes-from-winston-churchill-that-are-totally-fake-1790585636</ref> [[File:19685774_1492357004.9813.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Widely viewed picture showing Antifa supporter nicknamed "Moldylocks" getting punched in the face.]]

{{cquote| Antifascist Action focuses on promotional, informative and practical ways of struggle against all authoritarian ideologies and groups promoting any kind of oppression, particularly against Neo-Nazism and right wing radicals.}}

Numerous liberals, such as Dartmouth professor Mark Bray, have described Antifa's violence as a "positive" thing, casting it as necessary for a greater good – "combating the far right."<ref>Ernst, Douglas (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/mark-bray-dartmouth-professor-calls-vital-antifa-v/ Dartmouth professor calls Antifa violence ‘vital’ form of ‘collective self-defense’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref> House Democrat minority leader [[Nancy Pelosi]] first condemned Antifa violence only in August 2017.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/29/nancy-pelosi-finally-condemns-antifa-berkeley-viol/ Nancy Pelosi condemns antifa for first time as radical leftists wear out welcome]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref><ref>Richardson, Valerie (September 13, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/antifa-protest-of-ben-shapiro-looms-at-berkeley/ Antifa violence splits left as another major protest looms at Berkeley]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 15, 2017.</ref> [[Tim Kaine]] refused to condemn Antifa.<ref>Kew, Ben (September 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/08/tim-kaine-refuses-to-condemn-antifa-dont-like-broad-brushes/ Tim Kaine Refuses to Condemn Antifa: ‘Don’t Like Broad Brushes’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 8, 2017.</ref>

Mainstream media outlets promoted the false claim that violent left-wingers user their violence against conservatives to bring about "peace."<ref>Starr, Penny (August 19, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/19/cnn-normalizes-antifa-leftists-seek-peace-through-violence/ CNN Normalizes Antifa: Leftists ‘Seek Peace Through Violence’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 19, 2017.</ref> Chuck Todd of NBC was criticized by conservatives for asking "softball" questions when interviewing Antifa sympathizers.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/chuck-todd-under-fire-for-softball-interviews-with-antifa-ally.html Chuck Todd under fire for 'softball' interviews with Antifa ally]. ''Fox News''. August 21, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

On August 28, 2017, [[Tucker Carlson]] pointed out on his show that the Antifa is effectively the militant wing of the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>[https://www.redstate.com/terichristoph/2017/08/29/tucker-right-antifa-militant-wing-democrat-party/ Tucker Is Right: ‘Antifa’ IS The Militant Wing Of The Democrat Party] ''RedState''. August 29, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref>

[[Wikipedia]] editors have downplayed Antifa's violence and far-left-wing ideology and portrayed it favorably.<ref>Adler, T.D. (August 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/ Wikipedia Editors Seek to Downplay Antifa Violence And Far-Left Ideology]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], which has labeled numerous mainstream conservative organizations as "hate groups" but is itself a hate group in its own right, has refused to label Antifa a hate group.<ref>Nelson, Steve (September 3, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/southern-poverty-law-center-condemns-antifa-but-wont-call-hate-group/article/2633252 Southern Poverty Law Center condemns antifa, but won't call hate group]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref>

In October 2018, [[Portland]] mayor Ted Wheeler mayor defended his own decision to let Antifa block traffic and harass drivers and to block the police from intervening.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (October 14, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/ted-wheeler-portland-mayor-stands-decision-allow-a/ Portland mayor stands by decision to allow Antifa to block traffic, hassle motorists]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 14, 2018.</ref><ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (October 15, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/30334-portland-mayor-lets-the-goons-rule-as-anti-trump-violence-escalates Portland Mayor Lets the Goons Rule as Anti-Trump Violence Escalates]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 15, 2018.</ref>

=="Antifa" violence and criminal behavior==
{{See also|Left-wing violence in the Trump era}}
The Antifa claims that its violence is necessary and legitimate to use in order to stop those who they believe to be "fascists" and "authoritarians."<ref>Williams, Katie Bo (September 14, 2017). [https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary Antifa activists say violence is necessary]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

Like the [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement prior, Antifa is establishing branches in cities across the country. By their actions,<ref>O'Reilly, Andrew (August 30, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30/antifa-violence-leaves-leftists-to-question-whether-movement-hurts-or-helps.html Antifa violence leaves leftists to question whether movement hurts or helps]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref> people are demanding the group be labeled a domestic terrorist organization by the government. [[File:C9vi9oXW0AEQy6v.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Picture showing Trump supporter nicknamed Based Stickman giving a wedgie to an Antifa protester.]] After previous Trump rallies were assaulted, right-wingers came prepared at the next rally and thoroughly embarrassed Antifa, pushing back hard. Assaults were widely viewed on [[social media]]. Antifa radicals tried to garner sympathy by establishing a GoFundMe.com account. With politicians and the liberal media largely ignoring the violence, it is only a matter of time before somebody dies as a result of all the hate, anger and criminal behavior being displayed by Antifa.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/antifa-leftist-terror-group-selling-concealed-knives-slicing-conservatives-website/ ANTIFA Leftist Group Is Selling Concealed Knives On Their Website For Slicing Conservatives] at the Gateway Pundit</ref>

Antifa groups have used violence in its [[anti-Trump]] demonstrations to the point where police in riot gear were needed, and protestors have used gas canisters and rocks.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/protesters-at-trumps-phoenix-rally-used-gas-canisters-rocks-to-assault-police.html Protesters at Trump's Phoenix rally used gas canisters, rocks to assault police]. ''Fox News''. August 23, 2017. Retrieved August 23, 2017.</ref>

In June 2017, an Antifa website encouraged physical violence against Trump supporters, capitalists and others who hold conservative-leaning views.<ref>Cheong, Ian Miles (June 19, 2017). [https://heatst.com/culture-wars/antifa-website-promotes-all-manner-of-physical-violence-against-trump-supporters-and-capitalists/ Antifa Website Encourages ‘All Manner of Physical Violence’ Against Trump Supporters and Capitalists]. ''Heat Street''. Retrieved June 20, 2017.</ref>

Since 2016, the FBI and DHS warned local governments of Antifa violence and its increasing occurrences, and they labeled its activities as "domestic terrorist violence."<ref>Multiple references:
*Suarez Sang, Lucia I. (September 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/03/fbi-dhs-warned-increasingly-violent-antifa-clashes-in-2016-documents-show.html FBI, DHS warned of increasingly violent Antifa clashes in 2016, documents show]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.
*Meyer, Josh (September 1, 2017). [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html FBI and Homeland Security deem antifa 'domestic terrorists' as they warn of escalating violence between the left and white nationalists]. ''Daily Mail''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.</ref> The [[New Jersey]] State Office of Homeland Security has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist group.<ref>[https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa Anarchist Extremists: Antifa, Dept of Homeland Security, June 12th, 2017]</ref>

In a major August 2018 protest in Washington, D.C., Antifa members threatened and physically attacked the police,<ref>Multiple references:
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-mob-pepper-sprayed-after-attacking-police-move-back/ Watch – Antifa Mob Pepper Sprayed After Attacking Police: ‘Move Back!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-launches-fireworks-fck-police/ Watch: Antifa Launches Fireworks at Police, Chants ‘F*ck the Police!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Rodriguez, Katherine (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-activists-threaten-cops-without-badge/ WATCH: Antifa Activists Threaten Cops: ‘Without That Badge You a B**** and a Half!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/video-antifa-secret-service-agents-clash-white-house/ Video: Antifa, Secret Service Agents Clash Near White House]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Kirkwood2018">Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29773-antifa-goons-attack-cops-in-dc-charlottesville-want-to-kill-trump Antifa Goons Attack Cops in D.C. and Charlottesville; Want to Kill Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Williams2018">Williams, Jennifer (August 12, 2018). [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/12/17681986/antifa-leftist-violence-clashes-protests-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC]. ''Vox''. Retrieved August 13, 2018. See also:
*Nash, Charlie (August 13, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/13/huffpost-extremism-reporter-attacks-news-outlets-for-covering-antifa-violence/ Far Left Attacks Vox for Reporting that Antifa Attacked Journalists]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 14, 2018.</ref> as well as uninvolved bystanders including mainstream media journalists.<ref name="Williams2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018">Kraychik, Robert (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/antifa-assault-photographer-in-dc-get-the-f-out-of-here/ WATCH: Antifa Assault Photographer in DC: ‘Get the F*** Out of Here!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-shouts-down-usa-today-reporter-you-dont-even-know-who-the-fck-we-are/ Watch – Antifa Shouts Down USA Today Reporter: ‘You Don’t Even Know Who the F*ck We Are!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref> They also carried signs promoting violence against people whose ideas they oppose,<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018"/> and many of them called for murdering the president.<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/>

Some Antifa members, such as California philosophy professor Eric Clanton, received extremely lenient sentences compared to the violent crimes they committed as Antifa activists.<ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29779-antifa-thug-skates-on-felony-assault-charges-sentenced-to-probation Antifa Thug Skates on Felony Assault Charges; Sentenced to Probation]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref>

==History==
:{{See also|Left Wing Terrorism in the United States}}
The modern re-incarnation of Antifa was founded in 1988 in Minneapolis, Minnesota as well as Toronto, Canada to counteract white supremacist groups and Neo-Nazi groups.

The organization can be traced to the “[[united front]]” of the [[Soviet Union]]’s Communist International ([[Comintern]]) during the Third World Congress in [[Moscow]] in June and July 1921. The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite [[communist]] [[revolution]]. The Soviets believed that following [[Russia]]’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to [[Germany]], since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).

It was at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922 that the plan took shape. Moscow formed the slogan “To the Masses” for its united front strategy and sought to join together the various communist and workers’ parties of Germany under a single ideological banner that it controlled. Both the communist and fascist systems were based on [[collectivism]] and [[economic planning|state-planned economies]]. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and [[genocide]]. In addition, the term "anti-fascism" was originally used by Stalin and the USSR prior to and during World War II as part of propaganda purposes to make the USSR seem mainstream by comparison to Nazi Germany.<ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-you-should-never-use-the-term-anti-fascist/article/2632847</ref><ref>Davies, Norman: ''No Simple Victory'' "Anti-Fascism" did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance....It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism. What is more, it opened up a wonderful arena for the activities of disciplined activists, whose training in the Leninist techniques of splitting and dividing adversaries would run rings round wooly intellectuals....If you were a French trade unionist, tired of the wrangles of the Left, or a British Empire loyalist baffled by the complexities of modern politics or a Christian peace worker hoping to avoid another war, anti-Fascism was for you! Only in the background was the unspoken dialect that, if Fascism was to be Bad, the Good had to lie with the originator of anti-Fascism -- Joseph Stalin's USSR. </ref>

The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “[[capitalism]].”

While leftist extremists claim to be fighting “fascism” while launching their attacks on other groups, the report states the term “fascism” has a double meaning under the extreme-left ideology, indicating the “fight against the capitalist system.” Antifascism is a strategy, not an ideology. They argue that the capitalist state produces fascism, or at least tolerates it. Therefore, anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities.<ref>https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/service/glossar/_lA#antifaschismus </ref>

An Antifa group, "Refuse Fascism," organized what it announced would be a series of major rallies in U.S. cities that would last until President Trump and Vice President Pence stepped down.<ref>Parke, Caleb (November 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/antifa-apocalypse-anarchist-groups-plan-to-overthrow-trump-regime-starts-saturday.html Antifa apocalypse? Anarchist group's plan to overthrow Trump 'regime' starts Saturday]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref> Rather than millions of people, as it intended, the protests saw very low turnout.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (November 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/04/antifail-low-turnouts-at-multi-city-antifa-apocalypse/ ANTIFAIL: Low Turnouts At Nationwide ‘Refuse Fascism’ Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref><ref>Parke, Caleb (November 7, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/07/antifa-leftwing-anti-trump-protests-nationwide-turned-out-to-be-dud.html Antifa, leftwing anti-Trump protests nationwide turned out to be dud]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 7, 2017.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Domestic terrorism]]
*[[Left-wing violence in the Trump era]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

== External links ==
* [http://antifa.cz/ European website]
* [http://antifaunited.bigcartel.com/ American website not yet live]
* [https://www.facebook.com/pg/ANTIFA.CZ/about/?ref=page_internal Facebook page]
* [http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-shadowy-extremist-group-behind-the-anti-trump-riots/ The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ue4lSgyHs Video of Antifa harassing a man (Jason Kessler) and others while generally trying to hide their faces from the camera]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchism]]
[[Category:Snowflakes]]

Antifa

2018-11-08T18:40:21Z

Reevestehsnek: expanded upon the antifas militant nature

[[File:Anti-Trump anarchists, 2017.jpg|thumb|250px|Antifa anarchists protesting Trump on Inauguration Day 2017]]
The '''"Antifa"''' (short for "Anti-fascist action"), also known as the '''ARA''' (short for "Anti-Racist Action") is a violent group of militant far-leftists that seek political change, by means of mayhem, direct action and civil Unrest with-in America and most of Western Europe. Despite its name, the Antifa movement is itself a [[fascism|fascist]] and [[Liberal intolerance|intolerant]] hate group, even using in its speeches direct quotations from [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMAp8kXWrc</ref><ref>Knighton, Tom (July 10, 2017). [https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/10/anti-fascists-applaud-speech-made-completely-of-hitler-quotes/ 'Anti-Fascists' Applaud Speech Made Completely of Hitler Quotes]. ''PJ Media''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

==Description==
In the [[United States]], they rose up at the [[University of California]], Berkeley in response to [[Democrat]]s losing the [[2016 U.S. Presidential election]]. They claim that those individuals that support President [[Donald Trump]] and other conservatives are "[[Nazi]]s". In Europe, they claim that supporters of right-wing, anti-establishment figures such as [[Marine Le Pen]] in [[France]]<ref>Hoft, Jim (April 23, 2017). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/far-left-antifa-thugs-riot-paris-french-election-results-announced/ Far Left Antifa Thugs Riot in Paris After French Election Results Announced]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/20/pics-violent-anti-fascist-march-on-le-pen-rally-before-french-election/ PICS: Violent ‘Anti-Fascist’ March on Le Pen Rally Before French Election]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/24/french-presidential-election-leftist-protesters-grow-violent-after-results-come-in.html French presidential election: Leftist protesters grow violent after results come in]. ''Fox News''. April 24, 2017. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref> or the [[Alternative for Germany]]<ref>Montgomery, Jack (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/22/far-left-antifa-protestors-try-shut-populist-afd-convention-germany-injure-police-officers/ Far-Left Antifa ‘Protestors’ Attack Populist AfD Convention In Germany; Injure Police Officers]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> are "fascists" and "Nazis." Antifa groups have targeted [[Lega Nord]] in [[Italy]].<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (August 16, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/16/far-left-anarchist-extremists-take-credit-for-bombing-italian-populist-party-office/ Far-Left Anarchist Extremists Take Credit For Bombing Italian Populist Party Office]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 16, 2018.</ref>

They dress in all black, wear black masks to hide their identities and attempt to disrupt rallies that are held in support of Trump. They use pepper spray on unsuspecting people, throw rocks, bricks, bottles, cement-filled soda cans, balloons filled with their own waste, punches, M-80s, march with flags and clubs, and commit [[vandalism]] and other criminal acts. They are militant, far-Left extremists that are a product of far-Left ideology, education, and funding.

The Antifa does not support the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, as seen in their illegal shutting down of scheduled conservative speakers on college campuses.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 20, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/antifa-rise-after-charlottesville-alarms-free-spee/ Rise of antifa after violence in Charlottesville alarms free-speech advocates]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref> Its members have chanted support for the destruction of the United States, along with all national [[border]]s.<ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-chants-death-to-america-no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all/ Watch – Antifa Chants Death to America: ‘No Borders! No Wall! No USA at All!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 12, 2018.</ref>

Some [[witch]]es and practicers of the [[occult]] who support [[left-wing]] policies have described themselves as "Antifa witches."<ref>Jasper, William F. (October 26, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/30460-antifa-witches-a-glimpse-into-the-source-of-the-demonic-rage-surging-about-us “Antifa Witches”: A Glimpse Into the Source of the Demonic Rage Surging About Us]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 26, 2018.</ref>

==Support from "mainstream" liberals==
Many in the leftist [[mainstream media]] applaud the Antifa's stance as they align with their #Resist agenda,<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/anti-fascist-activists-are-fighting-the-alt-right-in-the-streets/ Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets, TheNation.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/video-richard-spencer-punch-antifa-fascism The Long History of "Nazi Punching" MotherJones.com]</ref> and they have not taken a strong and clear stance against Antifa violence.<ref>Greenwood, Max (August 31, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348777-right-accuses-left-of-hypocrisy-on-antifa Right accuses left of hypocrisy on antifa]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> [[Facebook]] permits them to have a page to rally support. Political figures in the U.S. Democrat Party and liberal European parties refuse to condemn their actions. There has been no condemnation of this group or its actions from California Governor [[Jerry Brown]]. Berkeley, California mayor Jesse Arreguín (who has ties to far-Left anarchist group By Any Means Necessary<ref name="Berkeley Riots">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/25/uc-berkeley-riots-violence-looms-as-mayor-questioned-over-ties-to-extremist-group.html UC Berkeley riots: Violence looms as mayor questioned over ties to extremist group]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 25, 2017.</ref>) has illegally ordered the city's police department to stand down while Antifa violence unfolds, which has caused a rift between the Berkeley Police and Arreguín.<ref name="Berkeley Riots"/> Likewise, Michael Signer, the Democrat mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, illegally ordered a stand-down for the city's police department to allow Antifa to engage in a violent riot with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in what is widely suspected to be a Democrat-staged false flag operation.<ref>[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2017/08/18/accountability/news-media/charlottesville-real-battle/ Charlottesville: The Real Battle]</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/is-mcauliffe-to-blame-for-charlottesville-bloody-violence/ Is McAuliffe to blame for Charlottesville bloody violence?] at WorldNetDaily</ref> While Antifa tries to proclaim they fight against who they claim are "fascists" (erroneously lumping in the [[Alt-right]] and conservatives with legitimate fascists like Nazis and white supremacists), Antifa is, in fact, fascist and Nazi-like themselves in every aspect, being the very thing they claim to fight against. A quote, falsely attributed to [[Winston Churchill]], is still correct in summing up this group of thugs, "When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism."<ref>http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-quotes-from-winston-churchill-that-are-totally-fake-1790585636</ref> [[File:19685774_1492357004.9813.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Widely viewed picture showing Antifa supporter nicknamed "Moldylocks" getting punched in the face.]]

{{cquote| Antifascist Action focuses on promotional, informative and practical ways of struggle against all authoritarian ideologies and groups promoting any kind of oppression, particularly against Neo-Nazism and right wing radicals.}}

Numerous liberals, such as Dartmouth professor Mark Bray, have described Antifa's violence as a "positive" thing, casting it as necessary for a greater good – "combating the far right."<ref>Ernst, Douglas (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/mark-bray-dartmouth-professor-calls-vital-antifa-v/ Dartmouth professor calls Antifa violence ‘vital’ form of ‘collective self-defense’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref> House Democrat minority leader [[Nancy Pelosi]] first condemned Antifa violence only in August 2017.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (August 29, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/29/nancy-pelosi-finally-condemns-antifa-berkeley-viol/ Nancy Pelosi condemns antifa for first time as radical leftists wear out welcome]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref><ref>Richardson, Valerie (September 13, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/antifa-protest-of-ben-shapiro-looms-at-berkeley/ Antifa violence splits left as another major protest looms at Berkeley]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 15, 2017.</ref> [[Tim Kaine]] refused to condemn Antifa.<ref>Kew, Ben (September 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/08/tim-kaine-refuses-to-condemn-antifa-dont-like-broad-brushes/ Tim Kaine Refuses to Condemn Antifa: ‘Don’t Like Broad Brushes’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 8, 2017.</ref>

Mainstream media outlets promoted the false claim that violent left-wingers user their violence against conservatives to bring about "peace."<ref>Starr, Penny (August 19, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/19/cnn-normalizes-antifa-leftists-seek-peace-through-violence/ CNN Normalizes Antifa: Leftists ‘Seek Peace Through Violence’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 19, 2017.</ref> Chuck Todd of NBC was criticized by conservatives for asking "softball" questions when interviewing Antifa sympathizers.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/chuck-todd-under-fire-for-softball-interviews-with-antifa-ally.html Chuck Todd under fire for 'softball' interviews with Antifa ally]. ''Fox News''. August 21, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2017.</ref>

On August 28, 2017, [[Tucker Carlson]] pointed out on his show that the Antifa is effectively the militant wing of the [[Democrat Party]].<ref>[https://www.redstate.com/terichristoph/2017/08/29/tucker-right-antifa-militant-wing-democrat-party/ Tucker Is Right: ‘Antifa’ IS The Militant Wing Of The Democrat Party] ''RedState''. August 29, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2017.</ref>

[[Wikipedia]] editors have downplayed Antifa's violence and far-left-wing ideology and portrayed it favorably.<ref>Adler, T.D. (August 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/31/editors-on-wikipedia-seek-to-downplay-violence-and-ideology-of-antifa-movement/ Wikipedia Editors Seek to Downplay Antifa Violence And Far-Left Ideology]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 31, 2017.</ref> The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], which has labeled numerous mainstream conservative organizations as "hate groups" but is itself a hate group in its own right, has refused to label Antifa a hate group.<ref>Nelson, Steve (September 3, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/southern-poverty-law-center-condemns-antifa-but-wont-call-hate-group/article/2633252 Southern Poverty Law Center condemns antifa, but won't call hate group]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.</ref>

In October 2018, [[Portland]] mayor Ted Wheeler mayor defended his own decision to let Antifa block traffic and harass drivers and to block the police from intervening.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (October 14, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/ted-wheeler-portland-mayor-stands-decision-allow-a/ Portland mayor stands by decision to allow Antifa to block traffic, hassle motorists]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 14, 2018.</ref><ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (October 15, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/30334-portland-mayor-lets-the-goons-rule-as-anti-trump-violence-escalates Portland Mayor Lets the Goons Rule as Anti-Trump Violence Escalates]. ''The New American''. Retrieved October 15, 2018.</ref>

=="Antifa" violence and criminal behavior==
{{See also|Left-wing violence in the Trump era}}
The Antifa claims that its violence is necessary and legitimate to use in order to stop those who they believe to be "fascists" and "authoritarians."<ref>Williams, Katie Bo (September 14, 2017). [https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary Antifa activists say violence is necessary]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

Like the [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement prior, Antifa is establishing branches in cities across the country. By their actions,<ref>O'Reilly, Andrew (August 30, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30/antifa-violence-leaves-leftists-to-question-whether-movement-hurts-or-helps.html Antifa violence leaves leftists to question whether movement hurts or helps]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 30, 2017.</ref> people are demanding the group be labeled a domestic terrorist organization by the government. [[File:C9vi9oXW0AEQy6v.jpg|right|150px|thumb|Picture showing Trump supporter nicknamed Based Stickman giving a wedgie to an Antifa protester.]] After previous Trump rallies were assaulted, right-wingers came prepared at the next rally and thoroughly embarrassed Antifa, pushing back hard. Assaults were widely viewed on [[social media]]. Antifa radicals tried to garner sympathy by establishing a GoFundMe.com account. With politicians and the liberal media largely ignoring the violence, it is only a matter of time before somebody dies as a result of all the hate, anger and criminal behavior being displayed by Antifa.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/antifa-leftist-terror-group-selling-concealed-knives-slicing-conservatives-website/ ANTIFA Leftist Group Is Selling Concealed Knives On Their Website For Slicing Conservatives] at the Gateway Pundit</ref>

Antifa groups have used violence in its [[anti-Trump]] demonstrations to the point where police in riot gear were needed, and protestors have used gas canisters and rocks.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/protesters-at-trumps-phoenix-rally-used-gas-canisters-rocks-to-assault-police.html Protesters at Trump's Phoenix rally used gas canisters, rocks to assault police]. ''Fox News''. August 23, 2017. Retrieved August 23, 2017.</ref>

In June 2017, an Antifa website encouraged physical violence against Trump supporters, capitalists and others who hold conservative-leaning views.<ref>Cheong, Ian Miles (June 19, 2017). [https://heatst.com/culture-wars/antifa-website-promotes-all-manner-of-physical-violence-against-trump-supporters-and-capitalists/ Antifa Website Encourages ‘All Manner of Physical Violence’ Against Trump Supporters and Capitalists]. ''Heat Street''. Retrieved June 20, 2017.</ref>

Since 2016, the FBI and DHS warned local governments of Antifa violence and its increasing occurrences, and they labeled its activities as "domestic terrorist violence."<ref>Multiple references:
*Suarez Sang, Lucia I. (September 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/03/fbi-dhs-warned-increasingly-violent-antifa-clashes-in-2016-documents-show.html FBI, DHS warned of increasingly violent Antifa clashes in 2016, documents show]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 3, 2017.
*Meyer, Josh (September 1, 2017). [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4844296/Homeland-Security-deem-antifa-domestic-terrorists.html FBI and Homeland Security deem antifa 'domestic terrorists' as they warn of escalating violence between the left and white nationalists]. ''Daily Mail''. Retrieved September 1, 2017.</ref> The [[New Jersey]] State Office of Homeland Security has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist group.<ref>[https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa?rq=antifa Anarchist Extremists: Antifa, Dept of Homeland Security, June 12th, 2017]</ref>

In a major August 2018 protest in Washington, D.C., Antifa members threatened and physically attacked the police,<ref>Multiple references:
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-mob-pepper-sprayed-after-attacking-police-move-back/ Watch – Antifa Mob Pepper Sprayed After Attacking Police: ‘Move Back!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-launches-fireworks-fck-police/ Watch: Antifa Launches Fireworks at Police, Chants ‘F*ck the Police!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Rodriguez, Katherine (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-activists-threaten-cops-without-badge/ WATCH: Antifa Activists Threaten Cops: ‘Without That Badge You a B**** and a Half!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/video-antifa-secret-service-agents-clash-white-house/ Video: Antifa, Secret Service Agents Clash Near White House]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Kirkwood2018">Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29773-antifa-goons-attack-cops-in-dc-charlottesville-want-to-kill-trump Antifa Goons Attack Cops in D.C. and Charlottesville; Want to Kill Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref name="Williams2018">Williams, Jennifer (August 12, 2018). [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/12/17681986/antifa-leftist-violence-clashes-protests-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC]. ''Vox''. Retrieved August 13, 2018. See also:
*Nash, Charlie (August 13, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/13/huffpost-extremism-reporter-attacks-news-outlets-for-covering-antifa-violence/ Far Left Attacks Vox for Reporting that Antifa Attacked Journalists]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 14, 2018.</ref> as well as uninvolved bystanders including mainstream media journalists.<ref name="Williams2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018">Kraychik, Robert (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/antifa-assault-photographer-in-dc-get-the-f-out-of-here/ WATCH: Antifa Assault Photographer in DC: ‘Get the F*** Out of Here!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref><ref>Binder, John (August 12, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-shouts-down-usa-today-reporter-you-dont-even-know-who-the-fck-we-are/ Watch – Antifa Shouts Down USA Today Reporter: ‘You Don’t Even Know Who the F*ck We Are!’] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref> They also carried signs promoting violence against people whose ideas they oppose,<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/><ref name="Kraychik2018"/> and many of them called for murdering the president.<ref name="Kirkwood2018"/>

Some Antifa members, such as California philosophy professor Eric Clanton, received extremely lenient sentences compared to the violent crimes they committed as Antifa activists.<ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/29779-antifa-thug-skates-on-felony-assault-charges-sentenced-to-probation Antifa Thug Skates on Felony Assault Charges; Sentenced to Probation]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 13, 2018.</ref>

==History==
:{{See also|Left Wing Terrorism in the United States}}
The modern re-incarnation of Antifa was founded in 1988 in Minneapolis, Minnesota as well as Toronto, Canada to counteract white supremacist groups and Neo-Nazi groups.

The organization can be traced to the “[[united front]]” of the [[Soviet Union]]’s Communist International ([[Comintern]]) during the Third World Congress in [[Moscow]] in June and July 1921. The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite [[communist]] [[revolution]]. The Soviets believed that following [[Russia]]’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to [[Germany]], since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).

It was at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922 that the plan took shape. Moscow formed the slogan “To the Masses” for its united front strategy and sought to join together the various communist and workers’ parties of Germany under a single ideological banner that it controlled. Both the communist and fascist systems were based on [[collectivism]] and [[economic planning|state-planned economies]]. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and [[genocide]]. In addition, the term "anti-fascism" was originally used by Stalin and the USSR prior to and during World War II as part of propaganda purposes to make the USSR seem mainstream by comparison to Nazi Germany.<ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-you-should-never-use-the-term-anti-fascist/article/2632847</ref><ref>Davies, Norman: ''No Simple Victory'' "Anti-Fascism" did not offer a coherent political ideology. In terms of ideas, it was an empty vessel, a mere political dance....It gave the false impression that principled democrats believing in the rule of law and freedom of speech could rub along fine with the dictators of the proletariat, or that democratic socialists had only minor differences with Communism. What is more, it opened up a wonderful arena for the activities of disciplined activists, whose training in the Leninist techniques of splitting and dividing adversaries would run rings round wooly intellectuals....If you were a French trade unionist, tired of the wrangles of the Left, or a British Empire loyalist baffled by the complexities of modern politics or a Christian peace worker hoping to avoid another war, anti-Fascism was for you! Only in the background was the unspoken dialect that, if Fascism was to be Bad, the Good had to lie with the originator of anti-Fascism -- Joseph Stalin's USSR. </ref>

The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “[[capitalism]].”

While leftist extremists claim to be fighting “fascism” while launching their attacks on other groups, the report states the term “fascism” has a double meaning under the extreme-left ideology, indicating the “fight against the capitalist system.” Antifascism is a strategy, not an ideology. They argue that the capitalist state produces fascism, or at least tolerates it. Therefore, anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities.<ref>https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/service/glossar/_lA#antifaschismus </ref>

An Antifa group, "Refuse Fascism," organized what it announced would be a series of major rallies in U.S. cities that would last until President Trump and Vice President Pence stepped down.<ref>Parke, Caleb (November 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/antifa-apocalypse-anarchist-groups-plan-to-overthrow-trump-regime-starts-saturday.html Antifa apocalypse? Anarchist group's plan to overthrow Trump 'regime' starts Saturday]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref> Rather than millions of people, as it intended, the protests saw very low turnout.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (November 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/04/antifail-low-turnouts-at-multi-city-antifa-apocalypse/ ANTIFAIL: Low Turnouts At Nationwide ‘Refuse Fascism’ Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 4, 2017.</ref><ref>Parke, Caleb (November 7, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/07/antifa-leftwing-anti-trump-protests-nationwide-turned-out-to-be-dud.html Antifa, leftwing anti-Trump protests nationwide turned out to be dud]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 7, 2017.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Domestic terrorism]]
*[[Left-wing violence in the Trump era]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

== External links ==
* [http://antifa.cz/ European website]
* [http://antifaunited.bigcartel.com/ American website not yet live]
* [https://www.facebook.com/pg/ANTIFA.CZ/about/?ref=page_internal Facebook page]
* [http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-shadowy-extremist-group-behind-the-anti-trump-riots/ The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ue4lSgyHs Video of Antifa harassing a man (Jason Kessler) and others while generally trying to hide their faces from the camera]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Fascism]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Criminals]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchism]]
[[Category:Snowflakes]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2018-11-08T18:22:29Z

Reevestehsnek: updated more citations, this is a very high quality page!! nice job everyone

{{Officeholder
|name=Hillary Rodham Clinton
|image=Hillary Clinton.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Bill Clinton]]
|religion=
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=United States
|number=67th
|deputy=n
|president=[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|terms=January 21, 2009 – January 30, 2013
|preceded=[[Condoleezza Rice]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[John Forbes Kerry]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New York
|terms=January 3, 2001 – January 21, 2009
|preceded=[[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Kirsten Gillibrand]]
}}
}}
'''Hillary Rodham Clinton''' (born '''Hillary Diane Rodham''' on October 26, 1947) is a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and Democratic Presidential candidate. Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination while under [[criminal]] investigation.<ref>[https://youtu.be/mzs3K-oEjOA?t=1854 ''White House Admits Hillary Clinton Is Under Criminal Investigation'']</ref><ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/10/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-692016 ''Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 6/9/2016 | ctrl+f Last subject matter.'']</ref> Multiple subsequent inquiries determined the [[Obama administration]] seriously mishandled the Clinton investigations with numerous improprieties. Clinton lost the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 Presidential election]] to [[Donald Trump]] and blamed [[FBI]] Director [[James Comey]], white men, and self-hating women controlled by their husbands. Clinton has expressed interest in leading the Democratic party again in 2020.

Most people who voted for Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries were unaware Clinton was under criminal investigation at the time, as the [[mainstream media]] failed to report on it or censored it.<ref>[https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/09/breaking.-white-house-admits-hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation-video ''NBC deletes video'']</ref> Subsequent [[leak]]s of [[Democratic National Committee]] emails revealed primary election tampering, vote rigging, and voter suppression. The Obama administration and Clinton campaign [[collude]]d with [[Russia]]n operatives to produce an "insurance policy" of [[fake news]] against Trump's election alleging a [[Trump-Russia]] connection.<ref>http://circa.com/politics/alf-bank-in-russia-said-donald-trump-computer-connections-may-have-been-hacker-hoax</ref>

Clinton is known for her [[racist]] remarks.

==Background and positions==
She is a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. According to financial disclosure statements, she has served uninterruptedly as Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Family Foundation since 2001.<ref>[https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/clintons-pfd-2015.pdf Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report], OGE Form 278, Hillary Rodham Clinton, 05/15/15, p.19</ref> She is the wife of former President [[Bill Clinton]] who was [[impeach]]ed for providing false testimony and covering up sexual misconduct.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm|title=Approved Articles of Impeachment|date=December 20, 1998|accessdate=November 2, 2016}}</ref> Mr. Clinton has been accused of violent [[sexual assault]] by numerous surviving victims over many years,<ref>[https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/643475466490388480 Hillary Clinton on Twitter 10:24 AM - 14 Sep 2015].</ref> nonetheless Hillary has stood by him and attacked his accusers.<ref>[http://www.prorev.com/whtwtrr.htm Clinton Scandal Clips from The Progressive Review] June 2000 - Aug 2000</ref>

She is an [[elitist]], [[liberal]], [[pro-abortion]] advocate, supports the death penalty, federal funding for embryotic stem-cell research, [[same-sex marriage]] (which she originally opposed but flip-flopped once popular opinion shifted in favor of it, as did many other Democrat politicians during the 1990s and 2000s), and civil unions.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight - video]</ref> Her manipulation of racial politics and victims of sex crimes in the 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections has left her with an abysmal record in the fight for [[civil rights]], fairness, equal treatment of women and minorities and victims of sex crimes.

==Early history==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton early life and career]]''
Hillary Clinton was born in the rich white suburbs of Chicago. She attended Maine East High School, where she wrote for the school newspaper, participated in student council, was chairperson of the Young Republicans, and was selected for National Honor Society.<ref name="Whitehouse.gov">{{cite web |title=Hillary Rodham Clinton |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton |publisher=The White House |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref>

[[Carl Bernstein]] has chronicled the history of mental illness and depression which runs in the Rodham family. Her uncle attempted to hang himself but eventually died as an alcoholic in a fire while smoking in bed. Her other uncle died of coronary thrombosis or blood clotting in the heart. Her brothers lived "in a fog of melancholia."

Her father was emotionally abusive to her mother and the whole household; neighbors could not understand why her mother wouldn't leave him, despite her constantly expressing a desire to do so. Or his willingness to see her leave. This was before Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, so it wasn't that easy to break up a family.

Bernstein describes her father as, "a sour, unfulfilled man whose children suffered his relentless, demeaning sarcasm and misanthropic inclination, endured his embarrassing parsimony, and silently accepted his humiliation and verbal abuse of their mother....he had almost no recognizable enthusiasms or pretense to lightness as he descended into continuous bullying, ill-humor, complaint, and dejection." Her notorious temper and abusive attitude toward underlings was inherited from her father.<ref>http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-strengths-and-anger-white-house-revealed</ref> Her father was a Republican and her mother a Democrat, they used to joke how they cancelled each other's vote out.

She attended Wellesley College, which at the time was segregated by sex, and graduated in 1969 during the height of radical opposition to the Vietnam War. She graduated with honors based on her 92-page senior thesis entitled ''"There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.'' The subject was famed [[community organizer]] [[Saul Alinsky]]. When Clinton became First Lady, researchers sought access to the document, but the White House asked Wellesley to hide the embarrassment. Wellesley complied and refused access to researchers.

From 1969 to 1973, she attended Yale Law School where she worked on the editorial board of the ''Yale Review of Law and Social Action''.<ref name="arkhc">{{cite web |url=http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2744 |title=Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (1947–) |work=The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref> During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center which involved research on early childhood brain development. In the late spring of 1971 she, among others, got involved with [[Bill Clinton]]. [[Yoko Ono]], widow of [[Beatle]] songwriter [[John Lennon]], claims to have had a brief romantic fling with Hillary at this time. Ono told reporters in 2016 her election "would be a great advancement for [[LGBT]] and Women rights in America”.<ref>http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/</ref>

Ever the ambitious opportunist, she accepted an appointment to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Impeachment during the [[Watergate scandal]].<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-11-05/how-richard-nixon-created-hillary-clinton How Richard Nixon Created Hillary Clinton], Sam Tanenhaus, Nov 5, 2015. bloomberg.com</ref> Liberal sycophantic [[sexist]]s loyal to Bill Clinton deny she received this appointment on her own merit. They claim the position was offered to Bill first, and when he refused he suggested Rodham for it, which is highly unlikely. The appointment was made by John Doar, a Republican counsel on the committee. Given her Republican credentials as chairperson of the Wellesley Young Republicans, and her previous employment on Capitol Hill in 1968 in the office of the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Melvin Laird who became Nixon's Defense Secretary, and the fact she had better grades than Bill at Yale Law School, this appears to be just another leftover highly facitious claim in building the Bill Clinton myth and mystique.

After Nixon resigned she headed to Arkansas where Bill was carrying on with several other women including a childhood sweetheart who reports Hillary smelled so bad from not showering it made her gag.<ref>https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059308/bill-clinton-nicknamed-bad-smelling-hillary-the-warden-but-wanted-a-baby-to-quash-rumours-she-was-a-lesbian-his-long-term-lover-claims/</ref> Bill and Hillary had mapped out personal and political career ambitions together and a [[States Rights]] agenda to accomplish it. Bill unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1974. The two married on October 11, 1975. He was elected Governor in 1978, defeated in 1980, resumed it uninterruptedly til he became president. Bill said she only wanted a child so people wouldn't think she's a lesbian, and daughter Chelsea was born in 1980. When a [[Federal court]] ruled the Clinton's violated the [[Voting Rights Act]] with their legislative reapportionment plan,<ref>42 U.S.C. 1973</ref> their grip on Arkansas was slipping and they began making plans for a play on Wasington.

As a lawyer Hillary is an expert in medical confidentiality laws. Sam Smith of the leftist ''Progressive Review'' reported in 1998 an incident which occurred after Bill Clinton's electoral defeat in 1980. Bill Clinton arrived in a Little Rock emergency room with a drug overdose. Smith wrote,
{{Quotebox|Hillary Clinton had been notified by phone and had instructed the hospital staff that Clinton's personal physician would be arriving soon. When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident physicians on duty that night that they would never practice medicine in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton's drug problem. Reportedly, she pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave her dire warning.<ref>http://prorev.com/connex.htm</ref>}}

===Inslaw and the PROMIS technology===
'''[[Inslaw Inc]]''' developed the famous PROMIS software, an NCIC-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial institutions, utility companies, etc. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Dept., which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by US intelligence worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks, which included a "backdoor" for US intelligence to hack into. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for a company that obtained and marketed to banks copies of the stolen PROMIS software.<ref>https://youtu.be/m1GEnF1pdZ0</ref>

The PROMIS software explains why Bill Clinton never uses email. [[Dick Morris]]'s explanation - that the genuis with a 174 IQ who can work a complete ''New York Times'' crossword puzzle in 15 minutes while sitting on the toilet - does not know how to type maybe true. But Clinton most definitely knows through Hillary, who was close!y involved in these matters since the mid 1980s, there is no way ever to keep emails secret. Bill Clinton is in the habit of issueing oral instructions to close aides and the use of surrogates for communication, deniability, and no paper trail.

Several mysterious deaths are associated with the lawsuits the owners of Inslaw brought against the government for the theft of Inslaw's intellectual property that Hillary Clinton represented as the property of Systematics. In one case an entire fami!y was murdered.
*'''Larry Guerrin''' - February 1987. Investigator. Killed investigating the INSLAW case.
*'''Alan Standorf''' - January 31, 1991. Employee of [[National Security Agency]] in electronic intelligence. Standorf was a source of information for [[Danny Casolaro]] who was investigating INSLAW, [[BCCI]], etc. Standorf's dead body was found in the backseat of a car at Washington National Airport.
*'''Dennis Eisman''' - April 5, 1991. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Eisman was found shot to death.
*'''Ian Spiro''' - November 1992. Informant. Spiro had supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the INSLAW case. '''His wife and three children''' were found murdered on November 1, 1992 in their home. They all died of gunshot wounds to the head. Ian's body was found several days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cyanide poisoning.
*'''John Crawford''' - April 1993. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Reportedly died from a heart attack in Tacoma.

===Iran-Contra===
:''Main article:'' [[Iran-Contra]]
The [[Mena Airport]] in Arkansas became the logistical point for implementation of the Iran-Contra ordeal.<ref>https://youtu.be/g_epmurfIk8 ; see also Bill Plante & Michael Singer, ''Still a Strong Scent on the Mena Trail'', Letter to the Editor, [[Wall Street Journal]], 5/3/94.</ref> Gross value of the illegally imported [[narcotic]]s at Mena is said to have reached $100 million per month at its height, nearly ten times its cost of delivery in trade and arms.

Mena airport was documented to be the biggest drug-smuggling operation in the [[United States]] importing $100 million per month in cocaine.<ref>https://youtu.be/vKdPaQnZ1DA</ref> It is alleged that much of that money had been laundered through the [[Arkansas Development Finance Authority]] (ADFA), a bonding agency that Bill Clinton created to help small businesses get started. The video and Mara Leveritt's 1999 book, ''The Boys on the Tracks'' discussed that Bill Clinton's half-brother, Roger Clinton, and his bond dealer friend [[Dan Lasater]] had gone to prison for [[cocaine]]. Richard Garrett had stated on ''Unsolved Mysteries'', a television program which taped informational segments regarding the boys' on the tracks beginning in 1988,<ref>http://unsolved.com/archives/don-henry-kevin-ives</ref> that Saline County and Central Arkansas were overrun with drug-trafficking at a high level that extended to other counties and other states.

Even when Mena's gun-running operation was shut down after 1986, Mena continued to be used for illegal narcotics smuggling into the United States and the profits were pocketed by locals under then Governor [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/26/the-boys-on-the-tracks-are-back</ref> In 1989 Clinton received petitions from Arkansas citizens demanding he convene a state grand jury and investigate Mena.<ref>[http://bondiviewertest.azurewebsites.net/DataView/Article/HT?issueKey=19920501&articleKey=19920501021 Clinton Turned Blind Eye to Arkansas Contra Connections], ''High Times'', May 1992, p. 21</ref> Winston Bryant made Mena an issue in his successful bid for Arkansas [[Attorney General]] in 1990. A year later Bryant turned over state files involving Mena to Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, but Walsh did nothing with the reams of evidence.

===Mena airport===
:''Main article:'' [[Mena airport]]
[[File:320px-Contra commandas 1987.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Contras. Bill, Hillary, Vince Foster, and others ran the US end of the guns-for-dope operation. Webb Hubbell and other Clinton associates ran the money laundering schemes. By 1992, [[George H.W. Bush|Bush Senior]] owed enough of a debt for their cooperation and silence, and the Clintons had enough to blackmail the Bush's with to mount a direct challenge for the presidency. The Contra operation also gave the Clintons' opportunity to expand their contacts within the US Intelligence Community. By the time it was supposedly investigated in 1987, no one asked the obvious question: ''How were the Contras funded for 4 years before any weapons were sold to Iran?'' Within the name itself, 'Iran-Contra', implies the cover-up. Mena-Contra is more aptly fitting. Just as in the 'Benghazi investigation,' which masked Obama and Hillary supply efforts to ISIS - a bipartisan effort of which Republican [[Sen. John McCain]] was [[Obama war crimes#February 2012|also involved]].<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/09/11/exclusive-new-emails-in-benghazi-weapons-mystery.html</ref>]]
[[Hillary Clinton]] asked [[Vince Foster]] to help her spy on her husband in 1990. She wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race. Foster hired Jerry Parks, an Arkansas investigator who later worked as the head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters in [[Little Rock]]. According to Parks’s widow, “Jerry asked Vince why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary.”<ref>http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/new-documents-prove-hillary-clinton-murder-cover/#ixzz4Nvn7BWqq</ref>

Parks did other work for Foster. According to his wife, Parks delivered large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovered this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she had to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asked her husband whether he was dealing [[drugs]], and Foster explained that he paid Parks $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena.<ref>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm</ref>

"I'M A DEAD MAN," whispered Parks, as he looked up at the television screen. It was a news bulletin on the local station in Little Rock. Vincent Foster, a childhood friend of the President, had been found dead by the US Park Service outside Washington. Apparent suicide. He muttered darkly that Bill Clinton's people were "cleaning house," and he was "next on the list."

After Foster's death on July 20, 1993 Parks' home on Barrett Road was burglarized in a sophisticated operation that involved cutting the telephone lines and disarming the electronic alarm system. The dossier Parks had assembled at Hillary and Foster's request was stolen.

Two months later, in September 23, 1993, on the way back from El Chico Mexican Restaurant, at about 6:30 PM, a white Chevrolet Caprice pulled up beside him on the Chenal Parkway. An assassin let off a volley of semi-automatic fire. Parks skidded to a halt in the intersection of Highway 10. The killer jumped out and finished him off with a 9 mm handgun—two more shots into the chest at point blank range. Several witnesses watched as the gunman joined his accomplice in the waiting car and sped away.

The [[mainstream media|national media]] ignored the story of the gangland killing of the head of security of the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters.

The Little Rock Police told asked Mrs. Parks not to talk to the press until the case was solved, and she had agreed. By the spring of 1994 she was losing faith. The original detective, Tom James, had been pulled off the case. It was becoming apparent that the eyewitness accounts of the death were being ignored by the police. Witnesses had described two assassins: hefty men, with beer bellies and broad shoulders, greyish hair, in their late forties or early fifties. Yet the police kept saying that there was only one killer in the car.

Jane Parks went to visit a top official from the State Police whom she knew well from church. He told her outright that the [[murder]] was a conspiracy hatched in Hot Springs by five men who moved in the social circle of Buddy Young, the former chief of Governor Clinton's security detail and now the regional director of the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) for the south-central [[United States]]. She was given the names of the five men, and was told that they flipped coins to decide which two would carry out the execution. And finally, she was told that nothing was ever going to be done about it.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040402111006/http://terpsboy.com/Articles/JerryParks.html The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton], Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 1997</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ACyGsAAjfCI</ref><ref>https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Bill-Clinton-Unreported/dp/0895264080</ref>

===The Ives/Henry case===
The Clinton political machine and local economy had a vested interest for enrichment of themselves by continuing illegal drug smuggling after the CIA shut down the Contra supply operation and left Arkansas. On April 23, 1987, two 16 year old boys, Kevin Ives and Don Henry, stumbled upon and witnessed an aerial drop in the area of Bauxite and Alexander, Arkansas.<ref>http://www.idfiles.com</ref> Initial cause of death was claimed to be the result of passing out on a railroad track in Arkansas after smoking [[marijuana]].<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-14/news/mn-623_1_preliminary-report</ref> The ruling was made by Arkansas' State medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak.<ref>https://youtu.be/v4yO7sdYiCI</ref>

In April 1988, Kevin's body was exhumed, and another autopsy was performed, this one by Atlanta medical examiner Dr. Joseph Burton who discovered that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks. Don Henry's body was exhumed and discovered to have been stabbed in the back prior to being placed on the tracks. The deaths were indeed homocides.

Arkansas State Police (ASP) files of the investigation report the area where the two boys' bodies were found was a drop zone for drugs. Another report was that on the night the boys were killed, two witnesses saw two [[police]] officers beat up two boys and throw them in the back of a police car a short distance from where the bodies were found.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20050221103949/www.geocities.com/theoctopus22/thetraindeaths.html</ref>

John Brown, an investigator for the Saline County Sheriffs office, reported that Sheriff Pridgen and ex-prosecutor Jean Duffey talked to a pilot in [[Texas]] who admitted being a drug pilot and remembered that he had flown drugs to points near the Saline-Pulaski county lines, precisely where the boys' bodies were found. Prosecutor Duffey concluded the cover-up was because the drugs were Mena drugs.

A federal investigation was begun, but the Assistant United States Attorney, Bob Govar, reported that the FBI and DEA did not seem interested and did not furnish much help. Other reports in the state police file revealed that residents had complained about frequent low-flying planes in the area around the tracks.
[[File:14324699 1473274228.6179 funddescription.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Kevin Ives (right) and Don Henry (left) were the best of friends. The two were murdered when they stumbled across the Clinton network's dope and gun running operation in [[Mena Arkansas]].<ref>https://www.gofundme.com/donhenry-kevinives</ref> The [[Clinton body count]] originated with the Ives/Henry case and the mysterious deaths of seven witnesses, including a case the State Coroner ruled as suicide with the deceased's head found in a dumpster several blocks away.]]
During the Clinton administration in September 1995, agent William Temple of Clinton's FBI office in [[Little Rock]] told Linda Ives and her husband that it might be time for her to consider that a crime was not committed although the FBI had been working for two years on the case through its agent, Phyllis Coman.

In March 1996, the documentary, ''Obstruction of Justice'',<ref>https://youtu.be/965M_9BCYsw</ref> was released about the investigation into the murders and Dan Harmon's activities. John Brown, a former Saline county detective on the video, made the link between drug corruption in Saline County and drug corruption at Mena which began when Russell Welch, the Arkansas State police investigator in Mena, gave him a statement made by a confidential informant in federal prison which said the boys were killed because of the drug activity they had discovered and it was connected to the drug enterprise headquartered at Mena. The video explained what was known about Barry Seal and his use of airplanes to distribute cocaine. Brown told of reports he had found in the Saline County Sheriffs office dating back to 1987 and 1988 of residents living there where the boys' bodies were found complaining of planes flying over the tracks at 100 feet above ground level with their lights out.

In November 1996, Linda Ives, Kevin Ives mother, got a call from Philip Weiss who told her
he had been asked to prepare an article in the ''New York Times Magazine'' about people who hated Clinton. Weiss explained that Mark Fabiani, a White House lawyer, provided him with a set of news clippings about people who oppose the president and among those was a story about the "boys on the tracks." Linda Ives called Micah Morrison, an editorial page writer for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', who had written an article about her earlier in the year,<ref>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/MoneyInvesting/edit/o-ed4181.html</ref> inquiring about Phillip Weiss, and telling Morrison that Weiss talked about a packet of press clippings Weiss got from Fabiani including the article Morrison had written. Morrison then made wrote an article in the ''Wall Street Journal'', January 6, 1997, in which he broke the news that the White House was distributing to reporters packets of news clips to attack victims claiming it to be "conspiracy theories and innuendo."<ref>http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.html</ref>

===Other deaths in the Ives/Henry case===
*'''James "Dewey" Milam''' – May 30, 1987. Found decapitated. Dr. Fahmy Malak, the Coroner initially ruled death due to "natural causes" and an ulcer, claiming that the victim's small dog had eaten his head. Milam's head later was recovered fully intact from a trash bin several blocks away.
*'''Keith Coney''' – July 1988. Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck.
*'''Keith McMaskle''' – November 1988. Owner of a local bar. Stabbed 113 times to death.
*'''Gregory Collins''' – January 1989. Died from a gunshot wound.
*'''Jeff Rhodes''' – April 1989. He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump.
*'''Richard Winters''' – July 1989. A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery.
*'''Jordan Kettleson''' – June 1990. Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck.

===Eleanor Roosevelt and Huma Abedin===
After the death of [[Vince Foster]], whom Hillary was very close to, she is said to have fallen into a deep depression and reached out to author William Stayron who wrote about his own struggles with depression.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/books/chapters/0715-1st-bernstein.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</ref> In 1996 [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported Hillary Clinton consulted psychic mediums to contact the spirit of the deceased former First Lady [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] for advice.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/US/9606/22/hillary.book/</ref> This was not unprecedented, [[Mary Todd Lincoln]] held seances in the White House attempting to contact her loved ones. Hillary in many ways identified with Eleanor Roosevelt.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/hillarys-other-side-178552</ref>

Eleanor Roosevelt had been caught on surveillance "quite clearly having sexual intercoarse" with a younger man, [[Joe Lash]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Eroose2.jpg</ref> The story was leaked to the press.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cVzNFWV_rvEC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=westbrook+pegler+joe+lash&source=bl&ots=IMvenoPmub&sig=ZR7pa9GcKAsAY08BolOOHWgviPk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLuJzRsJDQAhXprVQKHfV2D6kQ6AEIezAT#v=onepage&q=westbrook%20pegler%20joe%20lash&f=false]. Columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on Mrs. Roosevelt's relations with Joe Lash.</ref> Eleanor arranged a sham marriage between Lash and a friend of hers', [[Gertrude Pratt]], to deflect criticism and attention. Eleanor Roosevelt's [[bisexual]]ity has become the focus of biographers and scholars.<ref>http://www.uis.edu/lgbtqa/eleanorroosevelt/</ref>
[[File:120726-huma-clinton.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Since 1996 the two have been together, with Abedin traveling the country as Clinton's "body woman."<ref>https://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/07/how-close-are-huma-abedin-and-hillary-clinton-169489?slide=0</ref>]]
Bill Clinton outed Hillary as a bisexual.<ref>http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-bisexual-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-interview/</ref> When stories of Hillary's [[lesbian]]ism abounded, Hillary held a press conference to deny the rumors.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hillary-clinton-not-lesbian-article-1.246111</ref> Not long after, Bill Clinton presided over an informal wedding ceremony between Hillary's longtime close associate and confidant, [[Huma Abedin]], who had been working at Hillary's side since 1994, and Rep. [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/dyke-hillary-dyke-hillary-6403108</ref> It was an odd relationship between the two; Weiner lived in New York and commuted to Washington when Congress was in session; Huma, like Hillary. spent the vast majority of time away from their spouse while Hillary and Huma travelled the globe in Hillary's role as Secretary of State.<ref>http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/hillary-lesbian-2.html/</ref><ref>http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-huma-make-surprise-visit-nyc-pride-parade/comment-page-4/</ref>

Weiner was driven from Congress in a sexting scandal. Later it was revealed Weiner's personal computer contained more than a half million emails related to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's email scandal. When the news broke, Hillary didn't separate herself from Huma by firing her, which Huma alone would be responsible for unauthorized State Department information being found on Anthony Weiner's personal computer. Like Nixon, she chose the path of loyalty to subordinates over making a clean break with people accused of lawbreaking, as Reagan had done when he fired [[Oliver North]] or John Kennedy when he fired [[Bay of Pigs|Allen Dulles]]. If elected, the nation faced a [[constitutional crisis]] over her actions, failures, and negligence.

==Scandals 1975–2001, partial list==
:''For a more complete list, see [[Hillary Clinton First Lady]]'' and ''[[Iran-Contra]]''
<center>{{Cquote|<big>If [[Reaganomics]] works at all, Whitewater could become the Western hemisphere's Mecca.</big>|20px|20px|Hillary Clinton in 1981 as reported by [[David Brock]] in ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham'', p. 196.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=mhOoB-ejGIMC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=If+reaganomics+eorks+whitewater+will+be+good&source=bl&ots=oNZfZNH1fw&sig=6oaim2Msj5o_HLBpme7LbdZ8v1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy_Ok3bfPAhWr1IMKHQFzAqMQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=If%20reaganomics%20eorks%20whitewater%20will%20be%20good&f=false ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham''], David Brock, Simon and Schuster, Feb 2, 1998, p. 196</ref>}}</center>
Only when she met Bill in 1971 did her political views flower and she became a [[Democrat]]. The Clinton marriage is fashioned upon precepts of ''The Art of the Deal''. She allowed him to chase any woman he saw fit, and he allowed her to run the [[Arkansas]] Governor's Mansion and [[White House]] as she saw fit.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-507762/Why-Hillary-Clinton-let-husband-Bill-seduce-woman-sight.html Why Hillary Clinton let husband Bill seduce any woman in sight], By SALLY BEDELL SMITH, 15 January 2008. www.dailymail.co.uk</ref> This was the deal Bill Clinton offered America, two for the price of one.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/18/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-wife-hillary-clinton-aspiring-first-lady-role-model.html?pagewanted=all THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Candidate's Wife; Hillary Clinton as Aspiring First Lady: Role Model, or a 'Hall Monitor' Type?], By MAUREEN DOWD, ''New York Times'', May 18, 1992.</ref>
[[File:Arkansas State Flag.gif|right|thumb|The Arkansas State Flag. The top star above Arkansas represents the slave holding Confederacy, an Act signed into law by Clinton.]]
Of the two, Hillary is the actual brains of the operation. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary and her law partners worked with clients looting depositor's money from Arkansas Savings and Loans which her husband regulated.<ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/ Independent Counsel Memo Laying Out Criminal Case against Hillary Clinton in Whitewater Land Scandal], JANUARY 28, 2016. www.judicialwatch.org</ref> She also pocketed large amounts of cash from complicated commodity future trading straddles.<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-and-wall-street-24-years-enriching-each-other The Clintons and Wall Street: 24 Years of Enriching Each Other], By Richard W. Behan / CounterPunch, February 26, 2016.</ref> As the family breadwinner, Hillary mocked and ridiculed stay-at-home moms.<ref>[http://time.com/4054623/clinton-dunham-tea-cookies/ This Was the Hillary Clinton Comment That Sparked Lena Dunham’s Political Awareness], Denver Nicks, ''Time'', Sept. 29, 2015.</ref>
===Arkansas and US First Lady===
As First Lady she holds the distinction of being the only First Lady in [[United States]] history to come under [[criminal]] investigation both as Arkansas First Lady and in the White House. Having escaped indictment for Whitewater crimes and lying to Congress, she was the first First Lady to run and be elected to Congress while her husband was serving as President.

===Travelgate (''a primer for millenials'')===
As the 2016 election day approached, the elite [[mainstream media]] remained dumbfounded as to why the American people still deemed Hillary Clinton untrustworthy. The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' revisited one of the first scandals to hit the Clinton White House:
{{Quotebox|Under criticism the White House changed its story. They said that they were just trying to cut unneeded staff and save money. Then they said they were trying to impose a competitive bidding process. They tried a new explanation—the travel office shake-up was connected to Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. (Almost immediately Mr. Gore said that was not true.) The White House then said it was connected to a campaign pledge to cut the White House staff by 25%. Finally they claimed the workers hadn’t been fired at all but placed on indefinite “administrative leave."}}
''"Sound familiar? It's just a cough...no, it's just allergies...no, it's heat and dehydration...no, it's pneumonia..."''<ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-17/why-dont-they-trust-her-look-one-hillary-clintons-first-ever-scandals</ref>
{{Quotebox|It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a high White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs—their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins—to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign. And she wanted to give the travel office business itself to loyalists. There was a travel company based in Arkansas with long ties to the Clintons. There was a charter travel company founded by Harry Thomason, a longtime friend and fundraiser, which had provided services in the 1992 campaign. If the travel office were privatized and put to bid, he could get the business.}}
''Deja vu'' all over again...
{{quotebox|'''Clinton Scandal Ritual:''' lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. 'As I’ve repeatedly said . . .'"}}
For a quarter of a century the Clinton name has been synonymous with scandal.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB887244288642713000</ref>

===Death of Vince Foster===
Vince Foster was the highest ranking [[Executive Branch]] official killed in office since [[John F. Kennedy]]. At the time of Kennedy's murder, the killing should have bern handled by the [[Dallas]] police [[homicide]] division. However federal officials and the [[Secret Service]] removed the body and flew it back to [[Washington DC]], interfering with an ongoing investigation. After that botched affair, federal laws were passed making various assaults on or killing of federal officials a federal crime. The new law made the [[FBI]] the lead agency in Foster's death investigation. Various circumstances however left the job in the hands of US Park rangers, and not even the more experienced DC homicide police were involved. Most profoundly, Bill Clinton's firing of the FBI Director the day before Foster's body was discovered in a federal park, left the Bureau stunned, leaderless, and in chaos.
====FBI files relating to Hillary missing from the National Archives====
[[File:Vince-foster-murder-clinton-696x445.png|right|300px|thumb|The Vince Foster gun. The weapon used to kill Foster and the gun found at the scene, among other pertinent facts, raise inexplicable questions.]]
FBI files relating to Hillary's role in the [[Vince Foster]]'s death investigation are now missing from the National Archives.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html</ref>

During the 2016 presidential campaign, in August 2016 [[Vince Foster]] was back in the news. A [[fake news]] story was planted in the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' alleging Foster killed himself because he had been humiliated by Hillary Clinton in a staff meeting one week before killing himself. This story sounds more plausible then the official explanation the ''Washington Post'' has cited for more than two decades - Beth Foster was depressed because he had done Hillary's tax returns,<ref>See for example ''Washington Post'', "The 1993 suicide of White House counsel Vincent Foster, hard on the heels of the travel-office imbroglio and his filing of delinquent Whitewater Corp. tax returns." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm Untangling Whitewater], By Dan Froomkin, Washingtonpost.com Staff.</ref> there are problems with it. Mainly, that according to the First Lady's schedule now at the Clinton Library in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton was in [[Japan]] and the Far East more than two weeks before Foster's body was discovered. She returned to the United States on July 18, spent two days in Arkansas, and wasn't scheduled to return to Washington till after Foster's body was found. Numerous other sources corroborate her schedule.

===Illegal fundraising, 1996===
{{Main|Chinagate fundraising scandal}}
The Chinagate was a campaign finance controversy in which the Clinton's illegally took money from foreign governments and military establishments. Like the Nixon administration, however, it was impossible to get the government to investigate itself, at least to any acceptable or just conclusion before the Clinton's term of office was up.

Agents of China sought to give contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996 presidential campaign]] in violation of US law barring non-American citizens from donating money to American politicians and political parties.<ref>Woodward, Bob and Duffy, Brian, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/china1.htm "Chinese Embassy Role In Contributions Probed"], ''Washington Post'', February 13, 1997.</ref>

An unclassified [[United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs|U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs]] report issued in 1998 stated that both James Riady and his father Mochtar "had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." According to journalist [[Bob Woodward]], details of the relationship came from highly classified intelligence information supplied to the committee by both the CIA and [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]].<ref>Woodward, Bob, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm "Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence"], ''Washington Post'', Feb. 10, 1998.</ref>
[[File:MOCTAR.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Hillary Clinton with Mochtar Riady at a fundraiser during the [[Chinagate]] scandal. Mochtar Riady, along with Bill Clinton's financial godfather Jackson Stephens, brought the [[BCCI]] to America, a front for international dope dealers and arms traffickers.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hk7XCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT61&lpg=PT61&dq=mochtar+riady+bcci&source=bl&ots=58F2SxmNWF&sig=ZV6dddrtUdo7dmmCfjVhgQZOuLE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpwvS7mvDTAhVH9mMKHc_MC5QQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=mochtar%20riady%20bcci&f=false]</ref>]]
The relationship between John Huang, the Riady Family, and the Clintons, goes back to the late 1970s in Little Rock, Arkansas. The patriarch of the family, Mochtar Riady, is an [[Indonesia]]n of [[Chinese]] descent who built up the Lippo Group empire. In the mid-1970s, Mochtar Riady planned to expand his business into the United States and began looking for partners. He met the Stephens family of Arkansas and entered into various joint ventures with Stephens Inc.

The Stephens famiy were in fact the original owners of the American branch of the notorious [[Bank of Credit and Commerce International]] (BCCI) in a joint venture with the Riady's in the late 1970s and 1980s.<ref>mlhttp://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/06early.htm</ref> It was shut down in the early 1990s in an enormous worldwide criminal money laundering scandal.

In Little Rock the Riadys met then-Governor Bill Clinton and financially supported Clinton’s gubernatorial campaigns throughout the 1980s.

After Riady pledged $1 million in support of then-Governor Clinton's campaign for the presidency 1992, contributions made by Huang had been reimbursed with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account Riady maintained at Lippo Bank and then distributed to Huang in cash. Also, contributions made by Lippo Group entities operating in the United States were reimbursed with wire transfers from foreign Lippo Group entities.<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm "James Riady Pleads Guilty"], Department of Justice, press release, January 11, 2001.</ref><ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/12/huang.sentence/ "Former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang pleads guilty"], ''CNN.com'', Aug. 12, 1999.</ref>

Huang visited the White House 78 times while working as a DNC fund-raiser.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/time9610.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Timeline"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> James Riady visited the White House 20 times including 6 personal visits with President Clinton.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/characters.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Cast of Characters"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> As a key fund-raiser he raised $3.4 million for the party.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm "Campaign Finance Key Player: John Huang"], ''Washington Post'', July 27, 1997.</ref>

Immediately prior to joining the DNC, Huang worked in the Clinton's [[Commerce Department]] as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs giving him access to classified intelligence on China.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/US/9905/25/cox.report.highlights/ "Highlights of U.S. report on alleged China spying"], ''CNN.com'', May 25, 1999.</ref>

Under questioning by Sen. Don Nickles during congressional investigations Clinton private investigator Terry Lenzner identified [[Cody Shearer]] as a liaison between Lenzner's firm, Investigative Group International, and the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe. The tribe had donated more than $100,000 to the [[Democratic Party]] hoping that the Clinton administration would intervene on the tribes behalf in a dispute over drilling rights on tribal land. Lenzner's firm had been hired by the Clinton's to discredit Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky and others, and had been retained to uncover compromising links between Sen. Don Nickles-opposed the tribe's claims—and local oil interests.

===Whitewater crimes===

An April 10, 1998 memo in the Whitewater Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) summarized Hillary Clinton's “crimes under consideration” for [[prosecution]].
{{Quotebox|Between January 1994 and February 1996 both Hillary Clinton and [Webster] Hubbell made numerous sworn statements to the [Resolution Trust Corporstion], the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the OIC. Each of these reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories relating to: how RLF [Rose Law Firm] came to be retained by MGSL [Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan]; Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL before state agencies’; Hubbell’s representations to the RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] and FDIC regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; and the removal of records from the [Rose Law Firm].}}
[[File:Chelsea Hubbell.jpg|right|375px|thumb|Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton has become the poster child of [[white privilege]] for a generation. Webster Hubbell, an old "family friend," gave up a lifetime appointment on the Arkansas Supreme Court to move to Washington with the Clinton's and serve four years in federal prison on a fraud conviction.]]
According to prosecutors, Hillary drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande transaction. Her concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison, were the subject of an OIC obstruction of justice probe.

The memo included substantial evidence depicting Hillary, Hubbell, and Vincent Foster, as complicit in activities that “facilitated crimes.” Hubbell was convicted of fraudulent billing practices and sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and fined $135,000.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060500908.html</ref> The memo noted that Hillary “destroyed” her personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty. The evidence covers:

{{Quotebox|'''Castle Grande.''' “The Castle Grande transactions were crimes.” The statement is followed by an explicit six-paragraph dissection of the land-flipping scheme.

'''[[Madison Guaranty S&L]].''' Hillary minimized the role she played in seeking state regulatory assistance for the corrupt savings and loan, headed by key Clinton financial and political supporter [[James McDougal]]. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

'''Vincent Foster and the Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records.''' The Rose billing records were a key piece of evidence in the probe. They were missing for years. After Foster’s death, the OIC memo notes "evidence supports the inference that personal documents which Hillary Clinton did not want disclosed were located in Foster’s office at the time of his death and then removed.”

'''Removal of Records from Vincent Foster’s Office.''' “ [O]n the afternoon of July 21st Bernard Nussbaum, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow two career DOJ employees to review the documents in Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, Susan Thomases, and Maggie Williams (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) exchanged 10 separate phones calls … That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as ‘personal’ to the Clintons.”

'''Hiding the Billing Records.''' “On the evening of July 22nd, Thomas Castleton … assisted Williams [Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton chief of staff] in carrying a box of personal documents up to … a closet in Hillary Clinton’s office. The closet is approximately 30 feet from the table in the Book Room, where the billing records were found 2 years later…."

'''Bying the Silence of a Co-Conspirator.''' Hubbell received several “jobs” from Clinton supporters for which he apparently did little or no work. During a taped conversation in prison, Hubbell appears to acknowledge that he withheld information from the OIC. Several of Hubbell’s job-providers fell most strongly within the hush money allegation.}}

The National Archives is withholding additional documents critical to understanding Clinton’s full role in the Whitewater scandal.<ref>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/</ref>

===Evidence tampering and obstruction===
After the death of White House staffer Vince Foster, 20 year Secret Service veteran Henry O' Neill testified before Congress he observed as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, carry boxes of papers out of Foster's office and up to the White House residence quarters on First Lady Hillary Clinton's instructions.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html Whitewater Lost and Found Records], Nightline Transcripts, January 30, 1996. npr.org</ref> The documents related to work performed by Jerry Parks, the head of security for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign.<ref>[http://contrariansview.org/onashisite/WebVAX/Foster/AEPonQuinn10Oct96.html Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interview], Quinn in the Morning Show, WRRK 97 FM Pittsburgh, October 10, 1996</ref> Under [[oath]], Hillary Clinton denied issuing the instructions or receiving the documents. The documents evidence in the investigation of the death of Vince Foster. Parks was gunned down in a gangland-style shooting in Arkansas two months after Foster's death.<ref>[http://prorev.com/2006/08/strange-death-of-jerry-parks-and-even.htm THE STRANGE DEATH OF JERRY PARKS AND EVEN STRANGER DEATH OF DR DAVID MILLSTEIN], ''Progressive Review'', Sam Smith, Editor, August 23, 2006</ref>

Two years later in 1995 some of the evidence was retrieved from the private White House living quarters. FBI investigators determined Hillary Clinton's fingerprints were on the documents.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-04-30/pdf/CREC-1996-04-30-pt1-PgH4166-3.pdf#page=2 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: First Lady's fingerprints on billing records"] (April 30, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4167-8.
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-05-10/pdf/CREC-1996-05-10-pt1-PgH4880-3.pdf#page=1 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints on billing records II"] (May 10, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4880-1.</ref>
===Pay-to-play pardons===
[[Marc Rich]] is the biggest tax cheat in American history. Rich fled the country. He was a big donor to the Clintons and the Democratic party, so [[Bill Clinton]] wanted to pardon him. [[Eric Holder]], who later served as Barack Obama's Attorney General, arranged the pardons.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/16/holder.confirmation/ Former FBI director: Holder was 'used' in Rich pardon], [[CNN]]</ref> Former President [[Jimmy Carter]] publicly called it "disgraceful".<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carter-rich-pardon-disgraceful/ Carter: Rich Pardon 'Disgraceful'], CBSNews.com staff AP February 21, 2001</ref> Rich's wife then donated at least $450,000 to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

==Attacking victims of sexual assault==
Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos writes in his memoirs of the Clinton 'War Room' about assignments to belittle and kill victim's allegations of sexual abuse. "We have to destroy her story," Mrs. Clinton instructed of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign in 1991.

In January 2016, Esquire magazine reported on a gathering in the fashionable Upper East Side apartment of the chief executive of HBO. Several conflicted past and present Clinton surrogates discussed how the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had sexual encounters with, or been [[sexual assault|sexually assaulted]] by former President Bill Clinton.

{{Quotebox|The conversation, relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously, captures the deeper debate unfolding among [[liberal]]-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clinton's leadership on women's issues with her past involvement in her husband's efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct.<ref>[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41327/new-york-times-clinton-rumors/ The New York Times Is Obsessed with 2 Things. You Already Know What They Are.], By Charles P. Pierce, ''Esquire'', Jan 20, 2016.</ref>}}
The conundrum these conflicted Clinton surrogates face is how to explain their own past participation in sliming and vilifying women who came forward with accusations against the President of the United States with a history of untoward, and even violent, sexual misconduct to a generation of Millennials unfamiliar with the brazen history of the pair:
{{Quotebox|Even some [[Democrat]]s who participated in the effort to discredit the women acknowledge privately that today, when Mrs. Clinton and other women have pleaded with the authorities on college campuses and in workplaces to take any allegation of sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously, such a campaign to attack the women's [[character]] would be unacceptable.}}
But such a public campaign of abuse and ridicule of the victim ''was'' acceptable under the Clintons, by Clinton media and [[Hollywood]] surrogates. And virtually all historical and inside eyewitness accounts, dating back to Arkansas and the White House years, point to Hillary Clinton as the source who made it a mission.

===Intimidation and blackmail===
{{Cquote|When Hillary hired this fleet of detectives to go around examining all of the woman who had been identified with Clinton. Not for the purpose of divorcing Clinton. Not for the purpose of getting him to stop, but for the purpose of developing blackmail material on these women to cow them into silence that had a [[Nixon]]ian quality that I hold against her and I continue to.|20px|20px|[[Dick Morris]]<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/10/31/dick-morris-i-left-when-hillary-hired-secret-police-to-go-after-woman-victimized-by-bill/ Dick Morris: I Left When Hillary Hired Secret Police to Go After Woman Victimized by Bill], by [[Breitbart.com]], 31 Oct 2014.</ref>}}
One of the more abhorrent aspects of Hillary Clinton's personality is a well documented pattern by multiple Clinton confidants and advisors of intimidation and blackmail toward female victims of Mr. Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. Mrs. Clinton is accredited with introducing the [[sexist]] [[pejorative]], 'bimbo', into the American political [[lexicon]] to disparage victims of sexual assault by the rich and powerful.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WiQRBN8igE Hillary Clinton calls Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims "Bimbo Eruptions"] youtube.com</ref> The politicalinsider.com identified the problem,
{{Quotebox|One of the most incredible things about Hillary Clinton running for President is that there is an extraordinary long list of scandals that younger voters have never heard of. Just trying to keep up with the multiple decades of corruption and criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton which happened long before the recent email scandal is overwhelming.<ref>[http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-woman-who-was-sexually-assaulted-by-bill-clinton-drops-a-bomb-on-hillary-whoa/ A Woman Who Was Sexually Assaulted by Bill Clinton Drops a BOMB on Hillary], thepoliticalinsider.com</ref>}}
The ''New York Times'' noted before the 2016 [[primary election]] season began that the ''’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women'', and Hillary Clinton certainly was not, by any account, a victim, or a victim of her husband's faithlessness.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html ’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', JAN. 20, 2016.</ref>
In the recent book, ''The Clinton's War on Women'', the authors cite a [[Sociology|sociological]] phenomena known as [[elite deviance]] in a society where the elites no longer believe the rules apply to them and their behavior is justified and facilitated by a cadre of [[sycophant]]s, [[apologist]]s, supporters, and surrogates collectively known as the Clinton smear machine.<ref>http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-hillary-clinton-smear-machine/</ref><ref>''[http://greatbookcorner.com/data/thepopularbook.site/T/the-clintons-war-on-women-roger-stone--93pfuGF9wiHCc6-8BX16-8ZvB6-8AVI6d.pdf The Clinton's War on Women]'', pp. 16-17 pdf.</ref>

To locate, stalk, harass, and intimidate the women, Betsy Wright was put in charge of the operation. According to [[Carl Bernstein]], "Betsy's operation became known as 'The Defense Department', and Wright was sometimes known as the 'secretary of defense'"<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=KG8oDvWH3ZYC&pg=PT612&dq=Carl+Bernstein+betsey+wright+defense+department+clinton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x4RWU4edAcLjsATguYHYAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Carl%20Bernstein%20betsey%20wright%20defense%20department%20clinton&f=false A Woman in Charge], Carl Bernstein, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Jun 5, 2007</ref> For this Jack Palladino, Terry Lenzner, Ivan Duda, Jerry Parks,<ref>http://bonedjello.com/Articles/The%20Murder%20of%20Jerry%20Parks.html</ref> Anthony Pellicano, and others were employed.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31278/ The real story behind the Clinton body count], ''[[WorldNetDaily]]'', 07/13/2005. Review of Richard Poe’s, ''Hillary’s Secret War.'' wnd.com</ref><ref>[http://alamo-girl.com/02742.htm PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES], SECTION: SECRET POLICE, Revised 8/10/00. http://alamo-girl.com</ref><ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/foster.html Reports Tie Clinton Sexcapades to Foster's Death]. mega.nu</ref>

To silence the women, all sorts of threats and intimidation were common, such as murdering the family pet on the doorstep or blatant threats against the lives of their children.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1v5e4lZiS08C&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=pellicano%2Bhillary&source=bl&ots=2QSRhFU8QY&sig=zFCzv6MqE1JDMGwraPnD1XL3TB8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyuqCkgYDNAhVLz2MKHdJwA9AQ6AEI3AEwIg#v=onepage&q=pellicano%2Bhillary&f=false Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, WND Books, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44416/ PI 'admits' Hillary paid him to harass Willey], WND, 11/07/2007.</ref> [[Pornographer]] impresario [[Larry Flynt]] was called to boot a $1,000,000 reward to anybody to come forward with sexual innuendo, whether true or not, to attack Clinton's enemies with.<ref>[http://observer.com/2000/08/its-poker-night-with-larry-flynt-porn-king-discourses-on-sex-gore/ It’s Poker Night With Larry Flynt! Porn King Discourses on Sex, Gore], By Andrew Goldman, ''New York Observer'', 08/28/00</ref>
====Sexual blackmail of political opponents====
Hillary's obsession with sexual blackmail isn't limited to compromising and silencing disgruntled mistresses or women Bill Clinton assaulted, it became a ready tool against political opponents as well. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an obsession with opposition research and digging up dirt on opponents.<ref>https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-already-knows-the-bad-thing-you-said?utm_term=.ry2yGw3Go#.of4rD4yDJ</ref> As Hillary's emails reveal, she often spent more time studying domestic critics views of her activities than the actual job of secretary of state. A new generation of millennials is becoming familiar with the term, "oppo", which is the first step in blackmailing and silencing media critics or candidates for public office. The Clintons have raised it from muckraking and [[dirty tricks]] to a high art form.

To political opponents and the women, Clinton surrogates routinely use the material, truth not being a factor, dug up by Hillary's investigator's to slime anyone publicly who wouldn't fall into line. A recent lawsuit filed just days after it became evident Trump was considering using the case of Joe Epstein in the election is intended to neutralize criticism.<ref>https://youtu.be/EPlDvVwER7A</ref> And the surrogates relish their jobs. Indeed, many Clinton supporters believe this is the essence of [[politics]] — slander, defamation, and demonization of living human beings — not formulation or discussion of public policy.

In what perhaps may or may not be a [[Freud]]ian slip Hillary Clinton titled her last book, ''Hard Choices''.

===Rape allegations===
====as Arkansas Attorney General====
The general pattern of the Clinton's being above the law is illustrated the Juanita Broadderick case from 1978.

Rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media. In an interview with ''Dateline NBC,'' that aired after the impeachment trial, Broaddrick claimed she had indeed been [[rape]]d by then Arkansas [[Attorney General]] Bill Clinton.<ref name="NBCinterview">''Dateline NBC'': February 24, 1999. ''The Washington Post'' [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm published a story about the interview] on February 25, 1999.</ref> The abuse put Broadderick in a quandry: who could she turn for help in a case against the state's highest ranking [[law enforcement]] official?

Broaddrick first met Clinton when he made a visit to her nursing home during his first gubernatorial bid. Broaddrick offered to volunteer for the campaign, and Clinton invited her to stop by the campaign office in Little Rock.<ref name=NYT>''New York Times'': [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/24/us/on-tortuous-route-sexual-assault-accusation-against-clinton-resurfaces.html On Tortuous Route, Sexual Assault Accusation Against Clinton Resurfaces]. February 24, 1999.</ref> She contacted the office a few weeks later when she was in Little Rock for a nursing home conference. Clinton said he would not be in the office that day and suggested they meet at her hotel’s coffee shop instead. Upon his arrival, however, he allegedly requested that they instead have coffee in her room to avoid a crowd of reporters in the lobby. Broaddrick agreed.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says the two spoke briefly in her room, then Clinton suddenly kissed her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick pushed Clinton away and told him she was married and not interested, but he persisted. As recounted in the NBC interview:<ref name="NBCinterview" />
{{quotebox|"Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.” }}
When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said “No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rodgers. Rodgers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says she did not tell her then-husband about the incident.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name=Slate>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html "Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?"]. ''Slate'' (magazine)''. March 3, 1999.</ref>

At the time, she was having an affair with her eventual second husband, David Broaddrick. He remembers her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick recalled incident occurred in the spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name="Slate" /> The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton's official schedule for the date,<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999 /> but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Three weeks later Broaddrick attended an event where the Clintons would be in attendance at the home of a local dentist.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick said she was “in denial,” and felt guilty, thinking that she had given Clinton the wrong idea by letting him into her room.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> When she arrived she says, her friend who had picked the Clintons up from the airport told her that Hillary Clinton had asked if she would be at the event.<ref name=FOXinterview>''FOX News'': Interview with Sean Hannity. June 10, 2003. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 Excerpt] available via YouTube.</ref> Broaddrick says Clinton did not speak to her at the event, but his wife Hillary approached her, took her hand, and said 'I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.”<ref name="FOXinterview" /> When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Mrs. Clinton held on to her and said, "Do you understand? Everything that you do."<ref name="FOXinterview" /> Broaddrick says she felt [[nausea]]ted and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Mrs. Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet.<ref name="FOXinterview" />

In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much."<ref name=WSJ>''Wall Street Journal'': [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB919379691540145000.html Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press]. February 19, 1999.</ref> Broaddrick said that in 1991, Clinton called her out of a state nursing standards meeting to try to apologize. In response to his apologies, as she told ''[[The Washington Post]]'', "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999>Kurtz, Howard (February 25, 1999). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"]. ''[[Washington Post]]''. p. A15.</ref> Darden also attended the meeting, and said she saw Broaddrick talking to Clinton in the hallway.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Lisa Myers if NBC, who conducted the ''Dateline'' interview, added she had no reason to doubt the veracity of Broadderick's accusations.

====as Rhodes Scholar====
An instance of media coverup, or failing to ask the right questions while promoting the Clintons and their careers is illustrated in Clinton's time at Oxford University.

The earliest known incident of a reported rape is from 1969 while at Oxford in England on the
[[Rhodes Scholar]]ship program. As is common knowledge, women's rights, [[prosecution]] of offenders, and protection for rape victims in 1969 were not what they are today.

The prestigious Rhodes Scholarship is an elite program intended to cement Anglo-American relations and train tomorrows world leaders. Clinton was recommended for the program in 1968 by his Georgetown Professor Carol Quigley and his political mentor, the notorious [[segregation]]ist Senator J. William Fulbright. It's a two-year program. Clinton received a draft deferment from conscription into the US Army during the Vietnam war for his enrollment in the program. It has been stated that 99% of all Rhodes Scholars graduate, the only cause of failing to graduate being death. Dropping out, or being thrown out, is/was virtuslly unheard of.

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who came forward saying Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near the University. A retired State Department employee confirmed that he spoke with the family. The employee said he believed the story of Miss Wellstone.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070516192906/http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm]</ref>

"There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma, But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape." The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies. "I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study."<ref>http://albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm</ref>

The victim's family declined to pursue the case; Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-121742-7463r/?page=all |title=The missing Clinton women|author=The Washington Times | publisher= Washington Times |date= June 24, 2004}}</ref>

In his book, ''Unlimited Access'', former FBI agent [[Gary Aldrich]] reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster.

Having been thrown out of Oxford, Clinton lost his draft deferment. Clinton entered Oxford in October 1968, according to David Maraniss, and received a draft induction in late July 1969. Yet the focus of news reporting in the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 presidential election]] was on championing Clinton as a 'Rhodes Scholar' while never asking how it was possible for a Rhodes Scholar with a draft deferment to receive a draft notice. The issue focused on his failure to report for induction rather than the fact that he ''was not'' a Rhodes Scholar, that he had been thrown out of Oxford, or the reason for being thrown out.

====Other assaults====
Most cited by name in this section of assault victims are of women who have spoken about the crimes they've suffered, although some have been intimidated into silence after going public. Others remain fearful to come forward.

In 1972, a twenty-two-year-old woman told Yale University’s campus police that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, and although no charges were filed, a retired policeman confirmed the incident to ''Capitol Hill Blue''. The woman herself was also tracked down and confirmed it, though she elected to stay anonymous.

In 1974 a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference, groping her and forcing his hand inside her blouse. Although she complained to her faculty advisor, who confronted Clinton, the complaint again failed to go anywhere. The student left the school shortly after the incident, and more recently confirmed the incident. Several former students also confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and also said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students.

Arkansas state troopers assigned to protect Clinton have knowledge of at least seven other complaints from women who said Clinton forced himself on them sexually or attempted to do so.<ref>[http://www.shwiggie.com/articles/clintons.html Living with the Clintons, Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed], By David Brock, 1993</ref>

A Little Rock legal secretary named Carolyn Moffet claimed that in 1979, she met the governor at a political fundraiser and shortly afterward received an invitation to meet him in a hotel room. She was escorted there by a state trooper. When she arrived he was sitting on a couch wearing an undershirt and nothing else, and angrily assaulted her. She was able to escape before being raped. Moffet received threatening phone calls. “He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I’d forget that it ever happened...I haven’t forgotten it. You don’t forget crude men like that.”<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/</ref>

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982 told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-trashing-of-clintons-women-6422690</ref> Clinton media surrogates publicly hype and boast of Clinton's manliness and ''machismo'' for his sexual conquest if Miss America.

An Arkansas state employee named Paula Corbin filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after she said the governor exposed himself and demanded sex in a Little Rock hotel room. President Clinton finally settled the case with Paula Corbin in 1998 with an $850,000 cash payment.<ref>
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/18/jones/</ref>

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser said Clinton invited her to his hotel room when he was in Washington in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas state trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was alright. Then, she said, Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. ‘’My husband and children deserve better than that..I wasn’t raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man...I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn’t take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on.” She said she learned other women had similar stories during Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She has since married and left Washington and retreated from public view.<ref>http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/255828</ref>

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s campaign plane in 1992, reported that he exposed himself to her, groped her, and made explicit sexual remarks. A video filmed on board the plane by [[ABC News]] showed an obviously drunken Clinton with his hand on intimate parts of another young flight attendant. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.<ref>http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/12/29/millennials-guide-bill-clintons-20-sex-scandals/</ref>

Kathleen Willey was a volunteer at the White House when Clinton grabbed her, fondled her, and pressed her hand against himself during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a [[60 Minutes]] interview, became a target of a White House–directed smear campaign after she went public.<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Target-Caught-Crosshairs-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0974670162 Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, World Ahead Publishing, Nov 6, 2007 ISBN 978-0974670164 ISBN 0974670162</ref> In 1998, just before Willey was to testify in the Paula Jones trial, Willey had a disturbing encounter where she was approached by a jogger near her home. The complete stranger asked her menacing questions about her children, naming them by name. According to Willey, "I'll never forget that look in his eyes . . . He just looked at me and he said, 'You're just not getting the message, are you?'" On Hardball in 1999, [[MSNBC]] host [[Chris Matthews]] identified the mysterious jogger as [[Cody Shearer]].<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-other-secret-dossier/article/2011477</ref>

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House and smesr machine.

Peter Baker in ''The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton'', which the ''Washington Post'' describes as the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that in the files of the independent prosecutor lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women. Baker noted
{{Quotebox|“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/The-Breach-Inside-Impeachment-William/dp/1476730075 The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton], Peter Backer, December 4, 2012, p. 138</ref>}}

On November 21, 2014, columnist Joan Vennochi of the ''a [[Boston Globe]]'' wrote, “Rape allegations hurt Bill Cosby but sail past Bill Clinton.”

“Power—who has it, who doesn’t, and how it can for years insulate the holder of it—is the common thread between Cosby, Clinton, and their accusers,” Vennochi wrote. Clinton apologists, surrogates, sycophants, and spin-meisters srgur their public policies are more important than his private failings.

“Meanwhile, the Clinton spin machine did its best to portray his accusers as ‘nuts or sluts,’ ...against women who dare to hold men accountable for their actions,” Vennochi wrote.<ref>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/21/rape-allegations-hurt-bill-cosby-but-sail-past-bill-clinton/YTIsUoXS2uxrW1mW2JSuRM/story.html</ref>

===Defends a pedophile===
The next job after the Children's Defense Fund the self described 'defender of children' handled was the case of a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl. The rapist, facing 30 years to life in prison, Hillary plea bargained down to time served - two months in county jail - by attacking the victim who was to young to testify in a court of law to defend herself.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/ AUDIO: Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes], Washington Free Beacon Staff, June 15, 2014. freebeacon.com</ref>

In court documents Hillary wrote to the judge about the young victim as:
{{Cquote|emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing...children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.<ref>[https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/ Video: Hillary Clinton brags about getting a pedophile off the hook], By Brandon Turbeville, January 25, 2016. www.intellihub.com</ref>}}
In 2006 the victim, now an adult heard for the first time Hillary Clinton laughing about her victory in the case. The victim spoke out,
{{Cquote|Hillary Clinton took me through hell. ...You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing. ... she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good...<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html She Lied: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says], Josh Rogan, ''The Daily Beast'', 06.20.14.</ref> }}

Mrs. Clinton knew the child rapist to be guilty, and joked about it. Clinton mainstream surrogates, apologists, and sycophants [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin%20control spin] the episode to prove how 'tough minded', 'dedicated, and 'fair' she is.

In 2014 Hillary Clinton again lied about the case claiming she asked to be relieved.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/ Politifact: Did Hillary Clinton ask to be 'relieved' from representing an accused rapist in 1970s?], By Steve Contorno, July 17th, 2014. politifact.com</ref>

===Joe Epstein===
When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Bill became a friend and business associate with a character known in the media as 'the billionaire pervert'. His new friend is involved in a child sex trafficking ring. He is a registered sex offender for sex crimes involving children.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/02/28/jeffrey-epstein-sex-offender-yes-billionaire-no/#669f83922136</ref>

Clinton's [[pedophile]] friend and associate, Jeffrey 'Joe' Epstein, is a donor to the [[Clinton Foundation]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html</ref> He began making donations shortly after his arrest on child sex charges. Epstein received a relatively light sentence in view of the charges against him. Epstein has settled lawsuits with 33 of his child victims. Other suits are still pending.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html#ixzz3NysnRS27</ref> Epstein is said to have provided minor girls for Prince Andrew. When the Palm Beach Florida police seized Epstein's contact book,<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-and-jeffrey-epstein-9086711</ref> 21 different phone numbers and email addresses for Clinton machine operatives were discovered, including the personal cell number for Bill Clinton, and numbers for Bill's flunky Doug Band and Hillary's flunky Cheryl Mills.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/cheryl-mills-the-woman-who-knew-too-much/</ref>

Epstein owns property in Manhattan, Palm Beach and the Virgin Islands where the child molestation acts are said to have taken place.<ref>http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/</ref> Seized flight logs in the investigation reveal Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane 18 times.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/18/morning_joe_panel_clintons_connection_to_billionaire_pedophile_jeffrey_epstein_will_blow_up_campaign.html]</ref> It has been established some of these flights were to Epstein's Virgin Islsnds retreat.<ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065</ref> A woman who victims name as procurring underage girls is s donor to the Hiilary Clinton Presidential campaign and attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010.<ref>http://snn.bz/clinton-4ss/</ref>

In 2007 former Whitewater prosecutor [[Ken Starr]], whom critics accuse of whitewashing the Vince Foster investigation,<ref>http://www.prorev.com/knowl2a.htm</ref> defended Epstein from a second conviction of having sex with a 14 year old minor.<ref>http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/791-ken-starr-explains-his-help-for-billionaire-pervert-jeffrey-epstein</ref> Starr was forced out of his position as president of Baylor University in May 2016 for mishandling another sex scandal.

==Racism==
:''See also [[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign]]'' and ''[[Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism]]''
Bill and Hillary Clinton are known for there cynical manipulation of Black voters and pandering to "white working class, hard-working white" nativist sentiment.<ref>https://youtu.be/vjoMcqMTMfw</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ijhL3-5sr18</ref> Reminiscent of her famous "bring them to heel" speech, while discussing police shootings [[Hillary Clinton]] said, "We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable" without bothering to explain what is inexplicable.

Hillary's racism runs deep. The night [[Bill Clinton]] lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974 and disappointing their immediate personel ambitions, Hillary blamed the loss on campaign manager Paul Fray. "She called me everything but a white man," Fray explained to the [[BBC]].<ref>https://youtu.be/_VonG4TyTWw</ref> Tensions escalated. Then she called him a "F***ing [[Jew]] bastard." The Cinton's of course deny it but five separate surving witnesses corroborate each other in detail.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/three-eyewitnesses-allege-hillary-called-aide-a-fking-jew-bastard/</ref><ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime">[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000.</ref> The incident was first reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''.<ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime"/><ref>http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

===The New Jim Crow===
Under the Clintons, more the 250,000 [[African American]]s were imprisoned in the [[United States]] than under President Reagan,<ref>http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=320</ref> a fact for which she takes credit for.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/</ref> Cumulatively since the Clinton's passed their crime bill, 2.5 million adult black males—more than 10% of the population—have been incarcerated leaving untold damage on black families.<ref>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/incarceration_rates_growth_causes/</ref>

Hillary's divisiveness and hate is targeted at a diverse group of people.<ref>https://youtu.be/yu9OH_KfPXA</ref> Hillary has publicly advocated treating minority youth like dogs,<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSDqbot-EI Hillary Clinton on "Superpredators"], Mrs. Clinton Campaign Speech Keene State University, January 25, 1996. youtube.com</ref> has made mocking and offensive comments about [[Jews]] and retarded children, and has called common American [[citizen]]s deplorables.<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/clinton-and-doeplorables-her-comments-about-trump-voters-her-fellow-americans-show-why-she</ref> These sentiments have been confirmed by Hillary's campaign chair, Mr. John Podesta, and her campaign manager, [[Robby Mook]]. According to all major, reputable sources, [[Hillary Clinton]] and/or her organization and its surrogates started the [[birther movement]] to discredit Obama.<ref>://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> Her declining health and criminal investigation became an issue in her 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://youtu.be/Zr1IDQ2V1eM Hillary Clinton's Illness Revealed], Dr. Ted Noel, VidZette.com, Aug. 29, 2016. youtube.com</ref>

===Jesse Jackson===
The Clintons call [[Jesse Jackson]] that "Goddamn n****r" behind his back.<ref>http://polidics.com/news/hillary-clintons-jew-bastard.html</ref><ref>http://rapmusic.com/threads/hillary-clinton-hates-blacks-and-jews-caught-by-the-secret-service-and-endorsers.1074368/</ref><ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com">https://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/the-clintons-jews-and-niggers-warning-graphic-language/</ref><ref>http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/racial-slurs-are-unsettling-if-used-by-celebrity-chefs-or-top-democrats/</ref> Jackson refused to release his delegates in 1984 to [[Gary Hart]], Clinton's old boss from the [[McGovern]] campaign of 1972. Jackson, the first African-American to win states in a major party primary, questioned the disparity between his vote total and delegate count, but even Hart sided with the DNC's rigging the primary rules.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/20/us/disparity-between-jackson-s-vote-and-delegate-count-vexes-party.html?pagewanted=all DISPARITY BETWEEN JACKSON'S VOTE AND DELEGATE COUNT VEXES PARTY], By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, ''New York Times'', May 20, 1984.</ref> In 1988 Jackson selected Ron Brown as his chief negotiator at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.<ref>https://socialistworker.org/2016/07/25/how-democrats-got-over-the-rainbow</ref> Brown went on to serve as DNC Chairman and Commerce Secretary until he died in a plane crash.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Ron-Browns-Body-Presidency-Hillarys/dp/0785262377</ref>

===Democratic Leadership Council===
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a racist organization formed by remnants of the McGovern and Hart campaigns - less the Rainbow Coalition.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html</ref><ref>https://ofamerica.wordpress.com/tag/democratic-leadership-council/</ref> By 1992 it had taken over the DNC. Democratic strategists sought to distance themselves from the civil rights movement and begin pushing the "centrist" candidacy of Bill Clinton.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan 31, 2016</ref>

That fact that 30 year old allegations of sexual asssult and improprieties are hurled at [[Bill Cosby]] with a devastating effect on his life and career while Bill Clinton is held up as a paragon of manhood and public service by the media and judicial system is a testament of the bigotry and racism of the mainstream media and their supporters. Rumors persist that the Clinton's have effectively blackmailed Barack Obama to drop thd email investigation and for his active support in the 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/</ref>

===Voting rights violations===
In Arkansas, the Clinton administration was sued several times by blacks and [[Hispanic]]s for violations of the 1965 [[Voting Rights Act]] and lost every case. 10 years into their grip on Arkansas the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled
{{Quotebox|violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas.

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the [[plurality]] system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory...

This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.<ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref><ref>http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2016/09/bill-clintons-comment-about-trumps-make.html</ref>}}

In more than one thousand legislative elections, the Arkansas delta region sent not one black to the legislature. In 1988 the federal district court forced a change to the system in Crittenden County that watered down the presence of a large number of black voters.

The case began when blacks in Crittenden County filed a voting rights lawsuit attacking the county's ''at-large'' system for electing two members to the Arkansas House. The suit contended that the system deprived black voters of a chance to elect a black to the state assembly.

The evidence at trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated. Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates, other official acts that made voting harder for blacks. A panel of 3 judges ordered Clinton, the Attorney General, and Secretary of State to redraw the boundaries to give maximum strength to black voters.

Local press reports in Arkansas from the late 1980s paint an ugly picture of the [[Clinton administration]]'s attempts to intimidate black voters.<ref>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=28880&msgid=18476315</ref> In her 1998 memoir ''Lift Every Voice'', former [[U.S Justice Department]] Civil Rights Division nominee Lani Guinier revealed that Clinton's record on [[race]] in Arkansas was so bad she was forced to take legal action. "As a staff lawyer for the [[NAACP]] Legal Defense and Education Fund [LDF], I had sued Gov. Clinton over Arkansas's deputy voter registration statute." A deputy voter registrar is someone authorized to register voters.

Guinier wrote, "In the late 1980s, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas - a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day," Dayna Cunningham, a civil rights lawyer, "were one of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious LDF voting rights suit. The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge...Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, 'We have to pay because we lost,'" the inference being the loss of the [[Civil War]] as well as the Clintons loss in the Supreme Court.

"Clinton had irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency," said Cunningham.

No good deed goes unpunished of course, so Guinier was not without her own problems for having unfortunately crossed paths with the Clintons, beginning at Yale. Three years after the ruckus in Arkansas President Clinton nominated her as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights. But the Clinton surrogates were lying in wait for her. A media smear campaign not only distorted her views, but in many cases presented them as the exact opposite. The ''New York Times'', which ordinarily presents the Clintons as the wonders of an age, ran an op-ed highly critical of Clinton's appointment, alleging Guinier was in favor of “[[segregation|segregating]] black voters in black-majority districts.” The ''Washington Post'', again no friend of conservatives, twisted Guiniers advocacy of proportional representation into a vision of “a society in which a minority can impose its will on the majority.”

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting says of the ambush and firestorm that surrounded Guinier's nomination:
{{Quotebox|there was also an ideological agenda at work: promoting Clinton’s media-celebrated shift “back to the center.” ... To make her a proper sacrificial offering, however, the establishment media had to reinvent Guinier — transforming a sophisticated advocate of racial reconciliation and participatory democracy into a sinister, [[race baiting|race-baiting]] enemy of the American Way.<ref>http://fair.org/extra/lani-guinier/</ref>}}

The Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the presidency. Guinier's nomination, if the Clintons were serious about it should have been easy. She had been Hillary snd Bill's classmate at Yale. It was classic ''Clintonism'': destroying the life of a friend and who was an advocate of racial reconciliation, painting the American people as racist, and promoting themselves. [[George Will]], it has been said, was too stupid and too lazy to actually read her writtings. As [[Mike Klonsky]] noted, when the liberal lions of the Democratically controlled Senate, such as [[Ted Kennedy]] and even [[Carole Moseley Braun]] stepped away, now the Clintons could turn a message of reconciliation into repudiation in front of the whole nation.

What's a little misunderstanding among friends? Guinier said she felt betrayed by Clinton, whom she considered a friend since their days together at Yale Law School, and was angered when he called her "anti-democratic," - the person who protected voting rights of African-Americans despite Clinton's fight against it - in a nationally televised address announcing he was scuttling her nomination.<ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?42098-1/assistant-attorney-general-nomination</ref>

===Rep. Ben McGee===
In 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Clinton wrongfully tried to overturn the election of a black state representative, Mr. Ben McGee, and replace him with a white Democrat Clinton handpicked. The case grew out of the suit against Clinton to win voting rights for the people of Crittenden County.

===Robert 'Say' MacIntosh===
Robert 'Say' MacIntosh is a civil rights activist who the ''Arkansas Democrat'' newspaper named Arkansan of the Year in the late 1970s for his charitable work with children in Little Rock's housing projects.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080926012344/http://www.cals.lib.ar.us/butlercenter/manuscripts/collection/mss97-43.html]</ref> MacIntosh unsuccessfully ran for public office under Arkansas's racial gerrymanderring and minority voter suppression laws of the Clinton era, including as Lieutant Governor in 1980. He considered challenging Bill Clinton in the 1986 Democratic gubernatorial primary, but backed out when another African-American candidate, former anti-poverty agency head W. Dean Goldsby, filed on the last day.

A tree was ceremoniously planted on the Arkansas capitol grounds in the Clinton years on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to honor Dr. King. McIntosh showed up the next day and chopped it down in front of the press, and commented, "No black man was invited to be present for the tree planting. I'm cutting it down till blacks are invited to be part of the political process in Little Rock." Wikipedia says "few debate that he has been a major part of local color in Arkansas."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_"Say"_McIntosh</ref>

MacIntosh publicized allegations Bill Clinton fathered an out of wedlock child named Danney Williams.<ref>https://twitter.com/danney_williams?s=09</ref> When Bill Clinton was in Little Rock, McIntosh would distribute leaflets within a five block area to raise money for the child's upbringing. He had frequent face-to-face confrontations with Gov. Clinton over child support. Clinton privately referred to MacIntosh with aides using the "n" word.<ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com"/>

The story resurfaced during the 2008 primaries, only this time the denials weren't so strong and adopted a more forgiving attitude.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/sex-lies-and-major-headlines</ref><ref>http://epubbookonline.com/b/3035/roger-stone/the-clintons-war-on-women/27</ref> Many blacks and Obama supporters were put off by the mainstresm media spin and questioned the untimely death of Ron Brown.<ref>http://wc.blackplanet.com/news/article_comments.html?news_item_id=46467</ref><ref>http://aapoliticalpundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/blacks-clintons-presidency-and-ron.html</ref> Even the ''Washington Post'' noticed the racial undercurrent in Hillary Clinton's campaign.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201762.html</ref>

===Ron Brown===
The death of Ron Brown remains a contoversial subject among African-Americans.<ref>https://youtu.be/BMXnPYGDgVc</ref> Ron Brown was the first black [[Secretary of Commerce]] who died in the crash of Air Force Two. The crash occurred one week before Brown was slated to give testimony in the Clinton campaign finance scandal, among other scandals.<ref>https://youtu.be/HR-WkSEzaho</ref>

===Confederate Flag Day===
The Arkansas Legislature's Act 116 of 1987 designated the star above the word "Arkansas" on the state flag as a commemoration of the Confederacy, signed into law by Gov. Clinton, as well as annual proclamations for Confederate Flag Day.

In April 1985 Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. and [[Robert E. Lee]], General of the Confederate army, state holidays on the same day. The coded message sent to white constituents could not have be clearer.

===Black lives don't matter===
On the eve of the [[New Hampshire]] primary in 1992, Bill Clinton took off from the campaign trail to sign the death warrant and oversee the execution of a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector. Recktor, who had been lobotomized, was mentally incompetent and unable to understand the charges against him.
<ref>[https://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-hitchens/ Christopher Hitchens], Skeptical Brotha. Retrieved 23 June 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.blackstarnews.com/us-politics/elections/bill-clinton-hopped-up-on-whack-ricky-ray-rector-part-2.html Bill Clinton "Hopped Up On Whack" -- Ricky Ray Rector Part 2], Colin Benjamin, Black Star News, April 13, 2016</ref> "It was like executing a child," the prison chaplain said. Hillary, the master strategist of the Clinton's rise, fearing the Willie Horton syndrome which torpedoed [[Michael Dukakis]] in 1988 and the 'monkey business' which destroyed [[Gary Hart]] as well, still defended the execution in 2016.<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clintons-indefensible-stance-on-the-death-penalty/ Hillary Clinton’s Indefensible Stance on the Death Penalty], Liliana Segura, ''The Intercept'', Mar. 17 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ Jan 31, 2016 04:00 AM MDT The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan. 31, 2016</ref>

Hillary was at his side when Bill Clinton raised mandatory sentencing guidelines which disproportionately sent Blacks to prison, giving the United States the highest mass incarceration rate in the world.<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter], By Donna Murch, ''The New Republic'', February 9, 2016</ref> The Clinton's championed the “three strikes you're out” law, passed a crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for more state prisons. By the time the Clinton's left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote], Michelle Alexander, ''The Nation'', February 10, 2016</ref>

In late 2015, while several American cities smoldered in riots over police shootings, Hillary Clinton had several prison industry lobbyists working as fundraisers on her campaign. The fundraiser-lobbyists worked for the Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, which also run most of the [[immigrant]] detention centers.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/while-missouri-students-battle-racism-prison-lobbyists-funded-hillary-clintons-campaign_b_8553370.html While Missouri Students Battle Racism, Prison Lobbyists Funded Hillary Clinton’s Campaign], H.A. Goodman, ''Huffington Post'', Nov 13, 2015</ref>

===Racial profiling Hispanics===
The Clintons instituted [[racial profiling]] of [[Latino]]s as drug dealers in 1988. Specifically, the troopers were authorized to stop and search cars driven by Hispanics, especially those with Texas license plates. Again, the Clinton's Criminal Apprehension Program was challenged in federal court and ruled unconstitutional. But the program went on anyway with further destruction of civil liberties when the Clinton's authorized state troopers to stop and search any car regardless of race.<ref>https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56765970.html</ref>

Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, cited the fact that Clinton was "a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics," and thst they do not have "the moral authority to lead a national campaign on this issue." The Clintons need to "apologize to all those Hispanics who suffered this 'morally indefensible' practice".

===Naked racism===
A Black Lives Matter activist confront Hillary Clinton in 2016 about the Clinton's history of [[racism]].<ref>[http://fair.org/home/why-did-it-take-an-activist-to-bring-superpredators-into-the-campaign/ Why Did It Take an Activist to Bring ‘Superpredators’ Into the Campaign?], By Jim Naureckas, FAIR, 27 Feb 2016</ref> In January 2016 ''[[Salon]]'' published an article on the dirty little secret among the liberal intelligentsia no one wants to talk about: the Clinton's rise and success has been based on stoking racial fears. Stan Greenberg conducted the focus groups that dictated the Clinton's daily buzzwords and talking points to provide the fodder and fuel the Clinton's lived and died on. Greenberg's work produced results claiming the Democratic party was too identified with [[Jesse Jackson]] and minorities to speak for 'average Americans' and it needed to appeal to white working class swing voters.<ref>[http://prospect.org/article/crisis-working-majority-0 From Crisis to Working Majority], Stan Greenberg, ''The American Prospect'' 2, no. 7 (September 1991). Republished 24 May 2005</ref>

Perhaps nothing reveals the cold, cruel, calculated and hateful divisiveness in the heart of the woman than her comment to Sam Donaldson on ABC's ''Prime Time Live'' that Gennifer Flowers was the daughter of Willie Horton. Intended as a throwaway line, with all the facts in now - that it was a lie and she knew it was a lie - we see the cynical manipulation of people, particularly those in the civil rights and women's movements, and her incipient predations.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1j6Xy5FnBzkC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=gennifer+flowers+is+the+daughter+of+willie+horton&source=bl&ots=LIylbGcmHA&sig=35GnRjdcZx32qV_stExpcJV0PFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPgdST5s3NAhUIKGMKHfDfCOgQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=gennifer%20flowers%20is%20the%20daughter%20of%20willie%20horton&f=false The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse], Colleen E. Kelley, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, pp. 268-269</ref>

In 1992 for the first time in nearly half a century the party platform made no mention of redressing racial injustice. Through triangulation and a policy of 'get tuff on crime', the Clinton's sought to repudiate and distance themselves from the Democratic party's commitment to the struggles of [[African-American]]s. The Clinton's formulated a crime bill purportedly to 'put 100,000 new cops on the street'. Hillary became one of the chief spokespersons referring to black teens as dogs.
{{Cquote|They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-slams-clintons-racist-1996-super-predators-comment/ Bernie Sanders slams Clinton's "racist" 1996 super predators comment], By Reena Flores, CBS News, April 14, 2016</ref><ref>[http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/ Superscapegoating], Teen 'superpredators' hype set stage for draconian legislation, By Robin Templeton, FAIR, 1 Jan 1998</ref>}}
In the 2008 presidential primaries, the Clinton's were back at it: fostering racial fear and paranoia,<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008</ref> which by now seemed to be the regular program of the Democratic Leadership Council.<ref>[http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html Muzzling The African-American Agenda With Black Help], Bruce A. Dixon, ''The Black Commentator''. www.blackcommentator.com</ref> They tried to marginalize Obama as the black candidate with comparisons to Jesse Jackson<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-jus_n_83406.html Bill Clinton: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson], ''Huffington Post'', 03/28/2008</ref> emphasizing Hillary's 'wide appeal': "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", Hillary told ''USA Today''.<ref>[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm Clinton makes case for wide appeal], By Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY, 5/8/2008</ref> She mocked and ridiculed Obama's fitness to lead on his no first strike nuclear pledge saying, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," whereas two months earlier she promised to nuke Iran. She stayed in the race even after it became apparent she lost, according to her, only because Obama might be assassinated.

As heir to the [[New Deal]] tradition and key to the New England donor base, Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s blessing on the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was vital. The Clinton's also were seeking bona fides among liberals and the [[civil rights]] movement. Clinton said of Obama, "that boy would have been carrying our bags and getting us coffee a few years ago".<ref>[http://urbanintellectuals.com/2015/07/17/did-you-know-bill-clinton-made-racist-comments-about-barack-obama-when-he-first-ran-for-president/ Did You Know Bill Clinton Made Racist Comments About Barack Obama When He First Ran For President], F. Taylor, Urban Intellectuals, July 17, 2015.</ref> Kennedy was offended by Clinton's racism and refused to give Hillary the endorsement.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/28/hillaryclinton.usa Hillary has cynically turned to the one argument she has left: race], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008.</ref>

===Haitian abductions===
:''See: [[Pizzagate]]''
In 2010, Bill Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, worked for the release of 10 adults who had been arrested transporting 33 [[Haiti]]an children abducted from their families across the border to the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>https://youtu.be/vzVAcn1YkcY</ref>

===African sex slaves===
Again, this advocate of women and children's rights was asked repeatedly in 2011 to designate [[Boko Haram]] as a terrorist organization after the group bombed the [[United Nations]] headquarters in Abuja. Secretary Clinton's State Department refused, despite requests coming from the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, the [[CIA]], and numerous Senators and Congressmen.<ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-dropped-ball-boko-haram-020300046--politics.html?ref=gs Hillary Dropped the Ball on Boko Haram], Josh Rogin, [The Daily Beast], May 7, 2014. www.yahoo.com</ref> In May 2012, Justice Department official Lisa Monaco wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al Qaeda in the Maghreb (al Qaeda in North Africa) and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?] Hot Air website.</ref>

The American counterterrorism agencies were asking for the legal authority to begin countering Boko Haram. Boko Haram is now an Islamic State province but at the time it held allegiance to al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at the behest of French and British [[corporate]] interests was in negotiation with several al Qaeda affiliates - [[al Qaeda in the Maghreb]], the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]], and Ansar al Shariah - to destabilize Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at the time and didn't want to antagonize or alienate her allies.

In early 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 teenage schoolgirls, most of whom were Black, and announced its intention to sell them as [[marital]] [[sex]] [[slave]]s.<ref>http://www.theledger.com/opinion/20160927/letter-for-hillary-money-matters-more</ref>

===Birth of the birther movement===
:''See [[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]''
Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign team began spreading [[Islamophobic]] rumors that Obama was a Muslim schooled in a ''madrassa'' as a child in Indonesia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/bill-clinton-barack-obama-bromance-long-slow-making Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: an alliance long and slow in the making], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080506093354/http://www.stop-obama.org/?page_id=23 Who is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?] Mission Statement, stop-obama.org</ref> Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, working through his son, Max Blumenthal, was the origin of the rumors that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim in order to stir up fear among the electorate which was intended to discredit Obama and work to Hillary's benefit.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/ The Great Islamophobic Crusade], CBSNEWS, December 19, 2010. cbsnews.com</ref>

It began with People United Means Action (PUMA), a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who not only opposed Barack Obama's nomination, but then went on to oppose his Presidency.<ref>https://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> PUMA members pointed to charges that the media directed sexism and misogyny at Clinton during the primary campaign and expressed anger at Democratic Party leaders' failure to speak out against that or otherwise respond appropriately.

===Political Correctness summit gaffe===
During a political correctness summit, where she acted as a keynote speaker, she let her views on blacks out publicly where she stated that "all [blacks] look alike [to her]."<ref>https://www.teaparty.org/hillary-clinton-says-blacks-look-alike-political-correctness-summit-330890/</ref>

== U.S. Senate ==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Senate career]]''
===FALN===
In preparation for her Senate bid, Bill Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group <ref>Multiple references:
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080501015940/http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf "Coddling terrorists?"] (September 21, 1999). Senate Republican Policy Committee. Retrieved from May 1, 2008 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (September 15, 1999). [http://web.archive.org/web/20000416225221/https://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm "Witness list (and transcribed statements): Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 'Clemency for FALN Members'"]. U.S. Senate website/Committee on the Judiciary. Retrieved from April 16, 2000 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate, 106th Congress (September 14, 1999). [http://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/33 "S.J. Res. 106-33: A joint resolution deploring the actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency to FALN terrorists."] U.S. Congress website/Legislation/106th Congress/Senate joint resolutions. Passed 95-2.</ref> to curry favor with [[radical]] [[Puerto Rican]] voters among the New York electorate.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm "FALN clemency and NY Senate race"] (1999-2009). Justice for Jonathan Pollard website.</ref> The FALN bombed the historic Fraunces Tavern in [[Manhattan]], killing four people in 1975. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm "Clinton pardons terror"] (August 13, 1999). ''New York Post''. Reprinted at Latin American Studies website.</ref>

===Illegal fundraising, 2000===
In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions.<ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html "Press release, Matter under review 5225"] (January 26, 2006). Federal Election Commission website.</ref>
===Illegal fundraising, 2007===
Norman Hsu was a 'HillRaiser', someone who brought in more than $860,000 for her 2008 presidential campaign, and co-hosted a $1 million fundraiser in Beverly Hills. Hsu had been convicted of defrauding investors of over $1 million in 1992 and had a fugitive warrant out for over 15 years at the time. Hillary had been warned about the source of the contributions earlier, but only returned the money after the scandal became public.

==Secretary of State==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Secretary of State]]
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject commercial arms sales to foreign governments based upon a broad range of reasons, from [[national security]] considerations to [[human rights]] concerns. This often brought her into a [[legal]] and [[ethical]] [[conflict of interest]] with donors to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]] has also criticized the foreign corporations that donate cash to the Clinton Foundation, citing "a French company", the Veolia Group, "that sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.” Veolia contributed between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Warren criticized Philip Morris, part of the Altria group, another Clinton Foundation donor. And “a Swedish company", Vattenfall, a state-owned Swedish utility; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency has contributed between $1 million and $10 million.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-targets-clinton-foundation-donors/ Elizabeth Warren Targets Clinton Foundation Donors], Brent Scher, May 8, 2015. freebeacon.com</ref>

She was a staunch advocate of American boots on the ground in [[Syria]] and [[Libya]].<ref>https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-war-risk-of-hillary-clinton/</ref> She has promised, if elected President, greater intervention,<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/time-delay-over-hillary-clinton-outlines-plan-combat-isis-n466346</ref> and the use of nuclear weapons against [[Iran]] if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack against [[Israel]].<ref>https://youtu.be/857guwaNbRc</ref>

Clinton later admitted to having emailed over 100 government officials, including President Obama, through her personal email account.<ref>Klein, Aaron (September 13, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/hillary-clinton-admits-emailed-100-government-employees-private-server/ Hillary Clinton Admits She Emailed Over 100 Government Employees from Private Server]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

===The Hillary Clinton Doctrine of smart power===
:''High tech surveillance, blackmail, and violations of international law.''
After being rejected for the top leadership of her party in 2008, the 62-year-old Clinton tenaciously held onto a quest for power, releasing her convention delegates and being granted the position of Secretary of State. Neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or George W. Bush were particularly qualified in the area of foreign affairs, but in the Democratic party a resume that includes reforming Arkansas public schools, receiving an appointment based on [[nepotism]] to squander tens of millions of dollars for a federal healthcare study program that never took shape, or serving as a non-distinct Senator with no tangible accomplishments qualifies a person to hold a high level position in a time of international crisis that neither they, nor their boss, understand anything about.

'Don't do stupid stuff' was President Obama's instructions to Hillary, the mantra being that George W. Bush was 'stupid', and therefore anything that departed from the policies of G.W. Bush was 'smart'. From this evolved Hillary's doctrine of 'smart power', overthrowing regimes with weapons supplied by donors to the Clinton Foundation without putting U.S. boots on the ground and unleashing millions of refugees worldwide.

All this 'smart power' needed a formal name; in recent decades several President's had 'doctrines' named after themselves - the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine; Bill Clinton was cheated, he never had any interest in foreign policy and little impact, so now it was time for a 'Clinton Doctrine', that is, the 'Hillary Clinton Doctrine' formulated by a Secretary of State that she could ride into the White House with. Thus began the quest to overthrow a U.S. ally as a favor to foreign donors to the Clintons. President Obama woke up too late to see how he had been used and manipulated to bring about a massive humanitarian crisis, and the damage Hillary Clinton's machinations have done to his presidency and legacy.

All in all, the team of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been a disaster for the world. Teaming up support for the 2016 Presidential election as loyal Democrats is a farce; they already are blaming each other for the hundreds of thousands dead, and the 2,000,000 refugees who have flooded across Europe just since 2014. And they most assuredly will continue to blame each other in their memoirs. A [[skeptic]] may say it doesn't matter, Middle Easterners don't vote in U.S. elections; but a skeptic might also have no problem voting for a leader with no [[conscience]]. The world is now in the midst of a serious displaced persons refugee crisis, the most serious since the end of [[World War II]] in 1945.

====Catastrophic aftermath====
[[File:Mass beheading of Christians in Libya.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary's War culminated in the creation of the [[Islamic State]] and mass beheading of [[Christian]]s.]]
Nuclear armed dictators such as [[Kim Jong-un]] witnessed how Gaddafi had been lied to and double-crossed by Secretary Clinton and her consortium.<ref>theatlantic.com"</ref> Decades of negotiation were lost with him, his father, and his grandfather, to persuade [[North Korea]] to give up its WMD, nukes and [[ballistic missile]] programs, return to the community of 'civilized nations', and to live in peace and harmony by accepting the word of the United States chief negotiator, the Secretary of State. When North Korea illegally tested an above-ground nuclear device in January 2016 it specifically cited the fate of Gaddafi as to why it needs a nuclear deterrent.<ref>telegraph.co.uk"</ref>

The brave new world Hillary built in Libya soon descended into chaos. The irascible [[jihad]]i elements Hillary and Obama supported turned their U.S. supplied weapons on American territory, the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary's 'moderate rebels' -- [[al-Qaeda in the Maghreb]] and the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]]<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/benghazi-raid-libyan-revolution Benghazi raid leaves cradle of Libyan revolution fearing for its future] ''[[The Guardian]]'' September 21, 2012. "There was no demonstration. They came with machine guns, with rockets."</ref>—killed the American Ambassador reportedly in the same fashion Gaddafi had been murdered.<ref>[http://www.aina.org/news/20120913165253.htm Ambassador Stevens Was Raped Before His Murder, Reports Claim], 2012-09-13. www.aina.org</ref> All this was occurring on American soil only 56 days prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential election]] where the slogan was "[[Osama Bin Laden#Abbottabad raid|Bin Laden is dead]], [[Crony capitalism|GM is alive]], and al Qaeda is on the run." The deceptive narrative denying America had been attacked was issued by Hillary Clinton at nearly the precise time Ambassador [[Christopher Stevens]] was viciously murdered.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE Here's the KEY MOMENT in Benghazi hearings - Rep. Jordan nails Hillary on LIES], posted by [[Pamela Geller]], Oct 22, 2015. youtube.com</ref>

The Libyan fiasco stiffened the resolve of [[Vladimir Putin]]. Putin did not veto the U.N. Security Council which passed a 'fig leaf' resolution to give its proponents, Hillary Clinton, [[Nicolas Sarkozy#Libyan affair|Nicolas Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron]] and Barack Obama an air of legitimacy.<ref>[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/forgotten-war-understanding-incredible-debacle-left-behind-nato-libya.html Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya], Posted on February 28, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog.</ref><ref>[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/ Hillary Clinton: the Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III], by Maidhc Ó Cathail – Diana Johnstone, March 10, 2016. www.counterpunch.org</ref> Amidst the ensuing chaos they began blaming each other. Once the duplicity and betrayal of the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton became obvious, Putin moved to shore up defense of his own allies - Russians residing in the [[Ukraine]] and [[Crimea]], and [[Syria]]n President [[Bashar al-Assad]].<ref>[http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603 Address by President of the Russian Federation], March 18, 2014. en.kremlin.ru</ref> Putin felt betrayed, the U.N. Security Council resolution was only to provide a no-fly zone aircover for the rebels, not an authorization for direct attacks and intervention against Gaddafi's forces as Putin had been assured beforehand.

===Iranian nuke deal===
The ''EU Times'' reported on 30 December 2012 Hillary Clinton had been injured in the crash landing of a C-12 Huron military aircraft 3 weeks prior in the city of Ahvaz,<ref>http://www.eutimes.net/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in-secret-us-mission-to-iran/</ref> Iran while on a secret mission in preparation of the Iranian nuclear deal and lifting sanctions.<ref>http://www.americannewsservice.org/search/label/Commander%20Job%20W.%20Price</ref> The report was ciculated among Hillary's staffers who joking referred to it as a conspiracy theory until Les Horn responded to Anthony Milavic on 3 January 2013,
{{Quotebox|Anthony -- FYI. The report appears to be credible. Les<ref>https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/9457</ref>}}
Reports say upon landing the plane encountered "extreme turbulence" causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed. Within seconds Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and "bleeding profusely."

The ''EU Times'' noted, "US media reports state that Secretary Clinton will return to work next week after her having suffered what they describe as a "nasty bout with stomach flu" and a "concussion" which have kept her missing from public view the past three weeks. The ''Debkafile'' confirmed these reports.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20130101003102/http://debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran</ref>

===Boko Haram===
[[File:Nigerian girls.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary Clinton did nothing to protect the lives and safety of 276 Christian girls kidnapped by [[Boko Haram]] and sold as sex slaves, despite multiple agency requests. The Obama administration furnished the same organization SAM-7 missiles capable of shooting down commercial and military aircraft.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/libyan-missiles-on-the-loose/2012/05/08/gIQA1FCUBU_story.html?utm_term=.a091217ed1fd Libyan missiles on the loose], By [[David Ignatius]], Washington Post Opinion writer, May 8, 2012</ref>]]
Hillary Clinton refused to place [[Boko Haram]] on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ "Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?"] Hot Air website.</ref> Placing Boko Haram on the State Department's terrorist list would then give legal authority to the CIA or FBI to act. At the time, Hillary was deeply involved in negotiations with and efforts to arm various Al Qaeda entities to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad.

Boko Haram, a terrorist group numbering 15,000 in three countries of West Africa, has murdered at least 20,000 people and displaced another 2.6 million. Boko Haram in 2011 was affiliated with [[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]; by 2017 it had the Islamic States' largest number of members.

In 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 Black African Christian girls and has sold them into slavery, reports indicate.

===Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation===
Once Saddam Hussein fell in April 2003, the [[Bush administration]] hastily closed Prince Sultan Airbase ending a long term commitment to the defense of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/prince-sultan.htm Prince Sultan Air Base, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia]. globalsecurity.org</ref>

By the end of the decade the Clinton Foundation received millions from an organization known as the Friends of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/clinton.donations Clinton's foundation got millions from Saudis, Gates], CNN, December 18, 2008. Univision TV owner also gave millions.</ref> With the theft of government records, and the admission Hillary scrubbed the server, the exact extent of a conflict of interest and other violations of law at present is unclear.<ref>[http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/30/gowdy-hillary-clinton-wiped-her-server-between-october-and-december-2014 Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Wiped Server Between October & December 2014], On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, ''[[FOX News]]'', 30 March 2015.</ref>
<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html How Hillary Clinton's email scandal took root], Robert O'Harrow Jr., ''Washington Post'', 27 March 2016.</ref>

====Rape victims====
As Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from the Kingdom of [[Saudi Arabia]], where rape victims are regularly flogged.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=1 Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record as Women’s Advocate], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', MARCH 8, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.mrctv.org/blog/rand-paul-stone-age-barbaric-saudi-arabia-buying-influence-donating-hillary-clinton Rand Paul: 'Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Have Taken That Money' from Saudi Arabia], Barbara Boland | March 25, 2015. www.mrctv.org</ref><ref>[https://www.gop.com/clinton-foundation-takes-from-countries-that-mistreat-women/ Clinton Foundation Takes $$ From Countries That Mistreat Women], October 11, 2015. www.gop.com</ref><ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/clintons-outrage-at-saudi-rape-sentence/2007/11/22/1195321896405.html Clinton's 'outrage' at Saudi rape sentence], ''Sydney Morning Herald'', November 22, 2007.</ref><ref>Conservative group claims Hillary Clinton's foundation took millions from foreign governments, [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ Politifact: Statement:'''TRUE'''], By Steve Contorno, February 26th, 2015. politifact.com</ref> In 2015, a 19-year-old woman who was the victim of a violent gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of being “indecent” at the time of the attack. Saudi law dictates a woman must have a male escort in public. She originally was sentenced to 90 lashes; on appeal the sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of indecency and exposing the case in the media.

====Gay rights====
While [[homosexuality]] is punishable by [[death]] under certain circumstances, this particular active Clinton donor at the present time is seeking to increase the frequency at which [[execution]]s of [[gay]]s is carried out. The Saudi judicial system blames [[Social media]] for causing an increase in 'deliberate' acts of homosexuality. As of the first half of 2016, there were 35 people on death row in Saudi Arabia for sodomy.<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/saudi-arabia-pushes-homosexuals-executed-7672283 Saudi Arabia 'pushes for homosexuals to be executed' amid fears social media is 'turning people gay'], By Rhian Lubin, ''Mirror'', 1 April 2016. www.mirror.co.uk</ref>

====Arms sales====
As Sec. Clinton approved weapons transfers, both Saudi Arabia [[Boeing]] aircraft made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The ''[[Washington Post]]'' revealed that a Boeing [[lobbyist]] was also working as a fundraiser in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship], By Rosalind S. Helderman, ''Washington Post'', April 13, 2014.</ref>

'''Boeing F15 fighters''' 
Early in her tenure the $29.4 Billion sale and upgrades of Boeing F15 fighter aircraft was a 'top priority'. The Saudi air campaign in [[Yemen]] has been led by American-made F-15 fighter jets. According to the United Nations at least 2,800 civilians have been killed in airstrikes so far.<ref>[https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52938#.V2iKGKLT9aU Yemen: civilian casualties top 8,100 as airstrikes and shelling continue, UN reports], 5 January 2016. un.org</ref> Three facilities supported by Doctors Without Borders have been bombed.

'''Cluster bombs''' 
The U.N. Secretary General has decried “intense airstrikes in residential areas and on civilian buildings in Sanaa, including the chamber of commerce, a wedding hall, and a center for the blind,” and has warned that reports of cluster bombs being used in populated areas “may amount to a [[war crime]] due to their indiscriminate nature.”<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”], Lee Fang, ''The Intercept'', Feb. 22 2016</ref><ref>[[Human Rights Watch]] released a report providing new indications that Saudi Arabia has fired American-made cluster munitions, banned by international treaty, in civilian areas of Yemen. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/world/middleeast/new-report-of-us-made-cluster-bomb-use-by-saudis-in-yemen.html?_r=0 New Report of U.S.-Made Cluster Bomb Use by Saudis in Yemen], By RICK GLADSTONEFEB, ''New York Times'', February 14, 2016</ref>

===European migrant crisis===
[[File:IMG 20170511 212807.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The European refugee crisis, the result of what the Washington Post calls ''Hillary's War's''<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html</ref> - has permanently transformed European society.]]
:''Main article:'' [[European migrant crisis]]
The [[Libyan uprising|Libyan Civil War]] and [[Syrian War]], the legacies of President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed "[[Arab Spring]]" [[foreign policy]]<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/middle-east-egypt-us-policy/409537/ Islamism, the Arab Spring, and the Failure of America’s Do-Nothing Policy in the Middle East], SHADI HAMID, ''The Atlantic'', OCT 9, 2015</ref> — which according to their own public pronouncements was supposed to overthrow corrupt [[secular]] dictators and establish [[democracies]] by arming and assisting anti-democratic [[Islamist]]s<ref>[https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110523-obama-and-arab-kspring Obama and the Arab Spring], George Friedman, ''Stratfor'', MAY 24, 2011</ref> — resulted in attacks on gays and women, mass beheadings, wholesale slaughter,<ref>[http://www.jihadwatcheurope.org/daesh-slaughters-200-syrian-children-in-a-savage-mass-execution/ Daesh mass execution of 200 Syrian children, 2014]</ref> and a tsunami in excess of 6 million homeless migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and jihadis invading Europe.<ref>[http://www.unrefugees.org/2015/06/a-world-at-war/ Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2015], UNHCR, June 18, 2015</ref>

One major factor in [[Brexit]] is the [[European refugee crisis]], causing [[Britain]] to tighten its borders. Over 2 million Muslims settled in Germany - 4 times larger than Germany's standing military, in 2015 as a result of Hillary's call for "Assad must go." Nearly one million natural born citizens of their homeland left Germany at the same time.<ref>https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/over-2-million-muslims-migrated-to-germany-in-2015/</ref>

==2016 Presidential election campaign==
[[File:Hillary on the campaign trail.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Black faces were conspicuously absent from Clinton rallies; among other shocking revelations, the Pedosta emails flatly stated the Clinton machine "conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry."<ref>https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/13/podesta-pal-we-conspire-to-produce-an-unaware-and-compliant-citizenry/</ref>]]
:''Main article: [[2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign]]''
{{See also|Presidential Election 2016|Clinton donors in the Panama Papers|Hillary Clinton email scandal|Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism}}, ''[[United States presidential election, 2016#Clinton attacks on women|Clinton attacks on women]]''
Clinton has held several public offices, and also ran for president in 2008 and 2016. In 2008 she lost to [[Barack Obama]], but she won the democratic nomination in a controversial and contested primary fight over [[populist]] [[Bernie Sanders]] during the [[2016 Presidential Election]]. Although Clinton won the popular vote 65,853,516 (46.1%) to 62,984,825 (48.2%), Trump won the [[electoral college]] vote, 306 to 232, with the incomplete vote count reported.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/election/results|title=Election Results|accessdate=Nov. 12, 2016}}</ref>
===Rigged nomination===
The Democrat Iowa Caucus was very chaotic, poorly run, and whose results were very questionable.<ref>Samuelson, Darren (February 8, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/how-iowa-democrats-couldnt-handle-a-two-candidate-race-218934 Inside the Iowa caucus chaos]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Tuttle, Ian (February 5, 2016). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430878/hillary-clintons-iowa-victory-transparent-irregularities Iowa’s Transparently Dishonest Democratic Caucus]. ''National Review''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Jacobs, Jennifer (February 3, 2016). [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowas-nightmare-revisited-correct-winner-called-caucus-night/79702010/ Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?] ''The Des Moines Register''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> It was reported that the results of 90 precincts, about 5 percent of the vote, went missing.<ref>[http://conservativetribune.com/iowa-caucus-democrat-party/ Iowa Democrat Party Issues Stunning Announcement About Caucus Results]. ''Conservative Tribune''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

The Democrat primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the party was shown to be helping Clinton behind the scenes.<ref>Griffin, Andrew (November 9, 2016). [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-us-election-president-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html Donald Trump won election because Democrats rigged system to have Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, says WikiLeaks]. ''The Independent''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Hoft, Jim (October 18, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/obama-lectures-media-integrity-elections-forgets-democrats-just-rigged-primary-bernie/ Obama Lectures Trump on "Rigged" Elections — Forgets That Democrats Just Rigged Primary Against Bernie]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> In addition, the Democrat primary has "superdelegates", who are made up of party leaders and can vote for whomever they want regardless of what the primary voters want.<ref>Resnikoff, Ned (May 16, 2016). [http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/why-will-superdelegates-decide-2016-democratic-primary-unearthed-documents-hold Why Will Superdelegates Decide The 2016 Democratic Primary? Unearthed Documents Hold The Key]. ''International Business Times''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Even the leftist website [[Salon Media Group]] believed the primary was rigged.<ref>Demoro, Roseann (March 30, 2016). [http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/ 10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start]. ''Salon''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

Donna Brazile, the interim DNC Chair, shared Democrat primary town hall questions to the Clinton campaign in order to help her win the primary.<ref>Shaw, Adam (March 17, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/brazile-admits-forwarded-debate-questions-to-clinton-camp.html Brazile admits she forwarded town hall questions to Clinton camp]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref><ref>Ernst, Douglas (March 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile-admits-leaking-debate-questions-to-c/ Donna Brazile admits leaking debate questions to Clinton camp: ‘A mistake I will forever regret’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> She continued to deny this fact through February 2017<ref>Scarry, Eddie (March 17, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donna-brazile-finally-admits-she-shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign/article/2617742 Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> and blamed [[Russia]] for the ordeal.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (March 18, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/18/donna-brazile-admits-to-sharing-debate-questions-with-clinton-camp-blames-russia/ Donna Brazile Admits to Sharing Debate Questions With Clinton Camp, Blames Russia]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref>

===Wikileaks===
:''Main articles:'' '''[[Murder of Seth Rich]]''' ''and'' '''[[Clinton body count]]'''
Clinton talking points emphasized the idea that US intelligence, the same people who brought you the [[WMD]] debacle, claim Russia and Putin are responsible for the hack of [[DNC]] servers which resulted in the firing of Democratic National Committee Chair [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]. This presumably would exonerate anyone connected with the DNC or Clinton campaign from complity in the Murder of Seth Rich.
[[File:Sethrich-e1494948876256.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Seth Rich (1989-2016) was a Sanders' supporter who leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks. His bullet ridden body was found on a dark Washington DC street two weeks before Hillary's nominating convention.]]
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails provided by [[Wikileaks]] showed clear [[collusion]] between Clinton, [[mainstream media]] outlets, and the DNC to smear [[Bernie Sanders]]. Thousands of hopeful millennials felt betrayed by the Democratic party. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out on the eve of the convention, less than 24 hours after dozens of emails were published by Wikileaks showing her and her staff rigging the primary elections for Hillary Clinton.

Wikileaks founder [[Julian Assange]] has offered $20,000 cash reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killers or killer, the alleged [[Whistleblower Statutes|whistleblower]] who provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks and was murdered execution style in early July 2016. Hillary says of Assange in an email, "Can't we just drone this guy?"<ref>http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/</ref> To silence Assange, Wikileaks internet access was cut by the government of Ecuador after the release of Hillary's private paid speech to [[Goldman Sachs]]. Wikileaks Director, Prof. Gavin Macfayden, was found dead the following week. Macfayden's death was the third of a close associate of Assange in 6 months.<ref>https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790004642038050816/photo/1</ref>

===Donna Brazile===
After a live televised Commander-in-Chief discussion with [[NBC]]'s [[Matt Lauer]] where the questions were said to be agreed upon before hand, Lauer proceed to use the bulk of the time to press Hillary on questions of her controversial email server.<ref>https://youtu.be/kfGeXth-Do4</ref> When the broadcast was over, Hillary was reported to have f!own into a rage demanding Lauer to be fired. Addressing interim DNC Chair [[Donna Brazile]], Hillary proclaimed,
{{cquote|You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting ******* Lauer get away with this betrayal? Get the **** to work janitoring this mess- do I make myself clear?}}<ref>http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/</ref>

===Divisive and dismissive comments===
Hillary branded half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and called them "irredeemable". Her spokeswoman called Roman Catholics "severely backwards" and charging that they don’t know "what the hell they’re talking about."<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (October 12, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/catholic-group-calls-clinton-spokeswomans-resignat/ Catholic group calls for Clinton spokeswoman’s resignation after anti-Catholic comments in emails]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref>

===Health matters===
In late 2012 Hillary was reported to have suffered a concussion. Initial reports suggested it occurred after a "fainting" spell; other reports stated she suffered the concussion on board a C-12 Huron military aircraft which skidded off the runaway while in Iran to jumpstart negotiations on sanctions and the nuke deal.<ref>https://youtu.be/xTMw_w4IhBw</ref> The crash occurred on or about 8 December 2012; Hillary had a public "fainting" spell on 15 December 2012<ref>https://youtu.be/2f-_vtw0jWg</ref> which then led to reports she suffered a concussion. Reports say she was not hospitalized at that time. In a 24 December email she refers to having a "cracked head."<ref>https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/wikileaks-hillarys-crackhead-and-dementia-bombshell-hillary-clinton-used-drugs-for-dementia-and-parkinsons-disease-asked-nfl-chief-to-help-her-deal-with/</ref>

===Illegal fundraising 2016===
Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient.

State parties however can make unlimited transfers to the national party.

In 2014 the [[Supreme Court]] made clear in ''McCutcheon v. FEC'', the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions.

Six-figure donations to the Clinton machine either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting violations by he Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), state parties, and the DNC to other violations.

Donna Brazile and others admitted that the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.<ref>https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-anatomy-of-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/ </ref>

===Results===
It was widely expected that Clinton would win the election, and the elite pollsters and "political insiders" all predicted a massive Clinton victory.<ref>Vogel, Kenneth P. & Isenstadt, Alex (November 9, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036 How did everyone get it so wrong?]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Catanese, David (October 24, 2016). [http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-10-24/republicans-last-hope-the-polls-are-wrong Republicans’ Last Hope: The Polls Are Wrong]. ''U.S. News & World Report''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> At least once, when a poll was released that actually showed Trump leading, Clinton's campaign dismissed it as "bad polling".<ref>Nelson, Louis (November 1, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591 Clinton camp on new survey showing Trump ahead: It’s ‘bad polling’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> Instead, Trump won the election in a massive, historical upset, winning even states such as [[Pennsylvania]], [[Michigan]], and [[Wisconsin]], which a Republican had not won for 20–30 years.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/08/first-polls-close-in-2016-race-trump-projected-to-win-ind-ky-clinton-wins-vt.html Trump wins presidency, defeats Clinton in historic election upset]. ''Fox News''. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Blake, Aaron (November 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/ Donald Trump just blew up the electoral map]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> The polling and predictions were off dramatically.<ref>Flint, Joe & Alpert, Lukas I. (November 9, 2016). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-polling-in-hand-media-misses-mark-badly-with-election-predictions-1478710860 How the Media’s Election Predictions Badly Missed the Mark]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

A version of ''[[Newsweek]]'' magazine was printed that reported a Clinton victory, saying "Madam President: Hillary Clinton’s historic journey to the White House", was published and distributed before the election results even came in.<ref>Greenslade, Roy (November 10, 2016). [https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/10/if-only-donald-trump-had-come-second-eh-hillary Madam President: how Newsweek reported a Clinton victory]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> It appears that it is procedural and normal to make a copy for both candidates, but Clinton signed a copy of it prior to the election.<ref>Taylor, Kristinn (November 9, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/hubris-hillary-clinton-signed-newsweek-madam-president-cover-election-eve/ Hubris: Hillary Clinton Signed Newsweek ‘Madam President’ Cover On Election Eve]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> She later admitted that she did not draft a concession speech.<ref>Shepherd, Todd (September 10, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-concedes-i-had-not-drafted-a-concession-speech/article/2633949 Hillary Clinton concedes: 'I had not drafted a concession speech']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 11, 2017.</ref>

After the election, ''The American Spectator'' reported that on the night of the election, Clinton threw a massive extreme temper tantrum after she had realized she lost the election.<ref name="HRCMeltdown">Multiple references:
*R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (November 14, 2016). [https://spectator.org/where-was-hillary/ Where Was Hillary?]. ''The American Spectator.'' Retrieved August 20, 2017.
*Flynn, Daniel J. (November 15, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/hillary-clinton-screaming-obscenities-and-throwing-objects-in-election-night-meltdown/ Hillary Clinton Screaming Obscenities and Throwing Objects in Election Night Meltdown]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> According to a Secret Service agent, it was reported that "she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage."<ref name="HRCMeltdown"/> Additionally, it was further reported that she became physical towards John Podesta and Robby Mook, needing to be restrained.<ref>Rusty (November 15, 2016). [http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-drunk-violent-meltdown-election-night/ Reports: Clinton Had a Violent Meltdown on Election Night]. ''The Political Insider''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> This explains why she did not make a concession speech on election night, and why she delayed it the next morning multiple times.<ref>[http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Clinton-calls-Trump-to-congratulate-him-on-victory--400515131.html UPDATE | Clinton campaign pushes back address one hour]. ''WRDW'' (with ''AP''). November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref><ref>Strause, Jackie (November 9, 2016). [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-emotional-sorry-watch-945702 Hillary Clinton Delivers Emotional, Inspiring Concession Speech: "I'm Sorry"]. ''The Hollywood Reporter''. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref> Although Clinton had repeatedly claimed that Trump was too "temperamentally unfit"<ref>Balakrishana, Anita (September 8, 2016). [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clinton-press-conference.html Clinton: Trump is totally unqualified to be commander in chief]. ''CNBC''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> or "irresponsible" to be president, this evidence, and others, shows otherwise.<ref name="RiddellHRCtemper">Riddell, Kelly (May 23, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/hillary-clinton-hits-trump-temper-shes-no-picnic/ Hillary Clinton hits Trump on temper, but she’s no picnic, either]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref><ref name="UnruhHRCviolent">Unruh, Bob (November 15, 2016). [http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/report-hillary-physically-violent-after-losing/ Report: Hillary 'physically violent' after losing]. ''WND''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref>

After condemning Trump's pre-election refusal to accept election results regardless of outcome as a threat to democracy, Clinton donors funded a recount effort only in states Trump won which backfired and netted Trump a gain in popular vote totals. Wealthy donors who contributed over $1 billion to her campaign demanded an accounting for her loss, insisting without an independent, dispassionate review they could not be expected to continue contributing to the Democratic party in the future.<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715</ref> The Clinton machine and Obama administrations responded by blaming [[Vladimir Putin]] and FBI Director James Comey for the loss rather than mismanagement and poor strategic planning.

===Anti-Trump violence and hate crimes===
After the election, childish [[leftists]] and [[anarchists]], who could not accept the results of the election, strongly protested Trump's victory and committed outrageous and extreme acts of vandalism and violence.<ref name="Protests">Chiaramonte, Perry (November 10, 2016). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html Trump protests intensify, as doubts swirl about spontaneity]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Trump supporters were the victims of numerous targeted attacks, brutal violence, and [[hate crime]]s.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/video-emerges-group-beating-chicago-man-while-yelling-dont-vote-trump.html Video emerges of mob beating Chicago man while yelling 'don't vote Trump']. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2016/11/trump-supporter-15-beaten-during-rockville-protest/slide/1/</ref> A tech company corporate CEO threatened to murder Donald Trump.<ref>http://bgr.com/2016/11/15/man-threatens-to-kill-trump-ceo-sniper/</ref> The brutal and disturbing anti-Trump hate crimes (or hate crimes closely related to Trump's election) continued to occur into the next year.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/facebook-live-attack-latest-in-string-anti-trump-assaults.html Facebook Live attack the latest in string of anti-Trump assaults]. ''Fox News''. January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref> Democrat leaders, Obama and the Clinton machine refused to condemn the hate and violence. Ads for paid protesters appeared on Craigslist. Many of these protests were likely organized and coordinated, as many protestors were bused in by Coach buses.<ref name="Protests"/>
[[Image:Scream.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Many Clinton supporters likened Hillary's loss, and Donald Trump's victory, to Edward Munch's ''The Scream''.]]
Despite these attacks, liberals and leftists only focused on alleged attacks by Trump supporters against minorities and others (the false leftist narrative, although being blatantly false and one-sided, fits their manufactured narrative that Trump supporters are "racist" and "evil" and that leftists are "tolerant" and "forgiving", despite the opposite being true). It was found that despite the number of real anti-Trump attacks, several of the "pro-Trump" attacks were found to be hoaxes.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump"/>

===The ''shattered'' Clinton campaign===
Clinton continued to blame "misogyny" (even from women) for her loss of the election, as well as supposed Russian meddling in the election, James Comey, and WikiLeaks.<ref>Breitman, Kendall (April 7, 2017). [http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581 Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump]. ''NBC News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Kew, Ben (April 6, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2017/04/06/hillary-clinton-again-blames-misogyny-for-election-defeat/ Hillary Clinton Again Blames ‘Misogyny’ for Election Defeat]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref>

In April 2017, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes released the book ''Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'' revealed that the Clinton campaign was a dysfunctional disaster and that numerous mistakes during the campaign contributed to her defeat.<ref>Adams, Becket; Weaver, Al (April 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/im-sorry-clinton-campaign-disaster-laid-bare-in-new-book/article/2620518 'I'm sorry': Clinton campaign disaster laid bare in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Geraghty, Jim (April 19, 2017). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446885/shattered-jonathan-allen-amie-parnes-clinton-campaign-dysfunction-revealed Shattered Illusions]. ''National Review''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Kakutani, Michiko (April 17, 2017). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book reveals that Clinton did not plan on conceding the election until Obama told her to do so.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-excerpts-from-shattered-and-what-they-tell-us-about-clintons-loss/ Takeaways from the Clinton campaign autopsy "Shattered"]. ''CBS News''. April 18, 2017. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book also revealed that within 24 hours after her loss, the Clinton campaign, particularly [[John Podesta]] and [[Robby Mook]], developed the claim of alleged collusion between Trump and Russia to give to the public as the center reason for the loss.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/shattered-revelation-clinton-campaign-hatched-russian-hacking-narrative-24-hours-after-hillarys-loss/ ‘Shattered’ Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillary’s Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref>

*Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes (2017). ''[https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084 Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign]''. New York: Crown. ISBN: 978-0553447088.

In May 2017, former Democrat Vice President [[Joe Biden]] admitted: "I never thought [Clinton] was a great candidate."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/19/biden-knocks-clinton-not-great-candidate.html Biden knocks Clinton: Not a 'great' candidate]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 19, 2017.</ref>

Clinton blamed nearly everything except herself for her election loss.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/01/list-everyone-everything-hillary-clinton-has-blamed-loss-trump Here's a List of Everyone & Everything Hillary Has Blamed for Her Loss]. ''Fox News Insider''. June 1, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Concha, Joe (September 13, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/350404-foxs-guilfoyle-clinton-mad-at-everybody Fox's Guilfoyle: Clinton 'mad at everybody']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
See also:
*Giaritelli, Anna (September 13, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-my-own-mistakes-werent-enough-to-lose-the-election/article/2634237 Hillary Clinton: My own mistakes weren't enough to lose the election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.</ref> She blamed figures both on the Right and Left,<ref>Nelson, Louis (September 12, 2017). [https://www.politico.eu/article/hillary-clinton-book-memoir-12-times-dishes-out-payback-in-her-tell-all-book/ 12 times Clinton dishes out payback in her tell-all book]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> as well as Chief Justice [[John Roberts]]<ref>Lovelace, Ryan (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-blames-chief-justice-john-roberts-for-contributing-to-her-election-loss-in-new-book/article/2634059 Hillary Clinton blames Chief Justice John Roberts for contributing to her election loss in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> blue collar workers,<ref>Wegmann, Philip (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-writes-that-jd-vance-was-right-hillbillies-lost-me-my-election/article/2634117 Hillary Clinton writes that J.D. Vance was right. Hillbillies lost me my election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and misogynist white women. In her 2017 book ''What Happened'', in which she blamed many of those people, Clinton effectively stated that authoritarianism can be started through the questioning of leaders,<ref>Adams, Becket (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-funny-idea-of-authoritarianism/article/2634180 Hillary Clinton's funny idea of authoritarianism]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and she stated that all Democrats should vote in favor of abortion every time even if they are pro-life.<ref>Berry, Susan (September 12, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-democrats-who-are-pro-life-must-vote-to-promote-abortion/ Hillary Clinton: Democrats Who Are Pro-Life Must Vote to Promote Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Jashinsky, Emily (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-urges-democratic-party-to-adopt-litmus-test-on-abortion-in-new-book/article/2634060 Hillary Clinton urges Democratic Party to adopt litmus test on abortion in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> She blamed at least 27 different people or entities for her loss.<ref>Starr, Penny (November 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/08/27-excuses-hillary-clinton-has-made-for-her-2016-election-loss/ 27 Excuses Hillary Clinton Has Made for Her 2016 Election Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 8, 2017.</ref>

==Later life==
Since Dir. Comey's firing by President Trump, and the ascendancy the [[Attorney General]] [[Jeff Sessions]], Clinton may face more [[legal]] problems in relation to pay-to-play schemes as [[Secretary of State]] and donations to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

FBI director [[James Comey]] reopened an investigation into Clinton due to substantiated suspicions that former Attorney General [[Loretta Lynch]] was covering for her.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 23, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/23/russians-hacked-democrats-plans-cheat-general-election/ The Russians Hacked Democrats’ Plans to Cheat in the General Election, Too]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> Comey revealed that Clinton had sent classified information to [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>Wong, Kristina (May 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/03/comey-defends-himself-says-makes-him-mildly-nauseous-to-think-he-affected-election/ Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

As of May 2016, Clinton planned on forming per own PAC and becoming a paid speaker.<ref>Berger, Judson (May 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/clinton-obama-return-to-public-eye-with-new-ventures.html Clinton, Obama return to public eye with new ventures]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref> She created a PAC, called "Onward Together", which intended to promote left-wing and [[Opposition to Donald Trump|anti-Trump]] causes.<ref>Weber, Joseph (May 18, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/18/clinton-pac-aims-to-boost-left-wing-anti-trump-groups-will-still-have-clout.html Clinton PAC aims to boost left-wing, anti-Trump groups – will she still have clout?] ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 18, 2017.</ref>

Despite criticizing Trump during the campaign for refusing to accept the election results as legitimate, Clinton did not rule out doing the same thing after the election.<ref>Yilek, Caitlin (September 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-presidential-election/article/2634777 Hillary Clinton won't rule out questioning legitimacy of presidential election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref>

In September 2018, the Texas Board of Education voted to pull Clinton from the state's social studies curriculum.<ref>Farber, Madeline (September 14, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/texas-board-ed-votes-to-pull-hillary-clinton-and-helen-keller-from-social-studies-curriculum.html Texas Board of Ed votes to pull Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller from social studies curriculum]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 15, 2018.</ref>

==Quotes==
*"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being."<ref>''The Case Against Hillary Clinton ', [[Peggy Noonan]], p. 55</ref>

==See also==
*[[Clinton Cash]]
*[[Freedom of Choice Act]]
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate timeline 2016 election year]]
*[[Russiagate timeline 2017]]
*[[Russiagate timeline|Russiagate timeline 2018]]
*[[Uranium One bribery scandal]]
*[[Benghazigate timeline]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton facts]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton's net worth]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton and Watergate]]
*[[Clinton scandal]]s
*[[Awan investigation]]
*[[Sandy Berger]]
*[[Charles Schumer]]
*[[Honorarium]]
*[[FusionGPS]]
*[[Marc Elias]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
*[https://www.hillaryclinton.com Hillary Rodham Clinton 2016 campaign website]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=Clinton+Email&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber= 12,173 declassified stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email 30,322 stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department under the FOIA]
*[https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/ Stolen Clinton emails recovered by Russian Television]
*[https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton Declassified FBI criminal investigation documents]
*[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NARA-Whitewater-OIC-report-pg-17-38.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiCmYSQuPLOAhUUT2MKHXvlDfIQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFsX5z4OidXZMAJTkf5XsXn-B58QQ&sig2=2Uuf3pYqTlZPGjM2k11X6Q Summary of Evidence for Draft Indictment], Office of the Independent Counsel, 4/10/98
*[https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor State of Arkansas v Thomas Alfred Taylor]. Official record of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1975 defense of a child rapist.

{{Liberalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Hillary Clinton]]
[[Category:Bill Clinton]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]
[[Category:Clinton Administration]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Obama Cabinet]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of State]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax]]
[[Category:Clinton scandals]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:2000s]]
[[Category:2010s]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2018-11-08T18:16:44Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{Officeholder
|name=Hillary Rodham Clinton
|image=Hillary Clinton.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Bill Clinton]]
|religion=
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=United States
|number=67th
|deputy=n
|president=[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|terms=January 21, 2009 – January 30, 2013
|preceded=[[Condoleezza Rice]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[John Forbes Kerry]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New York
|terms=January 3, 2001 – January 21, 2009
|preceded=[[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Kirsten Gillibrand]]
}}
}}
'''Hillary Rodham Clinton''' (born '''Hillary Diane Rodham''' on October 26, 1947) is a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and Democratic Presidential candidate. Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination while under [[criminal]] investigation.<ref>[https://youtu.be/mzs3K-oEjOA?t=1854 ''White House Admits Hillary Clinton Is Under Criminal Investigation'']</ref><ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/10/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-692016 ''Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 6/9/2016 | ctrl+f Last subject matter.'']</ref> Multiple subsequent inquiries determined the [[Obama administration]] seriously mishandled the Clinton investigations with numerous improprieties. Clinton lost the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 Presidential election]] to [[Donald Trump]] and blamed [[FBI]] Director [[James Comey]], white men, and self-hating women controlled by their husbands. Clinton has expressed interest in leading the Democratic party again in 2020.

Most people who voted for Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries were unaware Clinton was under criminal investigation at the time, as the [[mainstream media]] failed to report it. Subsequent [[leak]]s of [[Democratic National Committee]] emails revealed primary election tampering, vote rigging, and voter suppression. The Obama administration and Clinton campaign [[collude]]d with [[Russia]]n operatives to produce an "insurance policy" of [[fake news]] against Trump's election alleging a [[Trump-Russia]] connection.<ref>http://circa.com/politics/alf-bank-in-russia-said-donald-trump-computer-connections-may-have-been-hacker-hoax</ref>

Clinton is known for her [[racist]] remarks.

==Background and positions==
She is a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. According to financial disclosure statements, she has served uninterruptedly as Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Family Foundation since 2001.<ref>[https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/clintons-pfd-2015.pdf Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report], OGE Form 278, Hillary Rodham Clinton, 05/15/15, p.19</ref> She is the wife of former President [[Bill Clinton]] who was [[impeach]]ed for providing false testimony and covering up sexual misconduct.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm|title=Approved Articles of Impeachment|date=December 20, 1998|accessdate=November 2, 2016}}</ref> Mr. Clinton has been accused of violent [[sexual assault]] by numerous surviving victims over many years,<ref>[https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/643475466490388480 Hillary Clinton on Twitter 10:24 AM - 14 Sep 2015].</ref> nonetheless Hillary has stood by him and attacked his accusers.<ref>[http://www.prorev.com/whtwtrr.htm Clinton Scandal Clips from The Progressive Review] June 2000 - Aug 2000</ref>

She is an [[elitist]], [[liberal]], [[pro-abortion]] advocate, supports the death penalty, federal funding for embryotic stem-cell research, [[same-sex marriage]] (which she originally opposed but flip-flopped once popular opinion shifted in favor of it, as did many other Democrat politicians during the 1990s and 2000s), and civil unions.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight - video]</ref> Her manipulation of racial politics and victims of sex crimes in the 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections has left her with an abysmal record in the fight for [[civil rights]], fairness, equal treatment of women and minorities and victims of sex crimes.

==Early history==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton early life and career]]''
Hillary Clinton was born in the rich white suburbs of Chicago. She attended Maine East High School, where she wrote for the school newspaper, participated in student council, was chairperson of the Young Republicans, and was selected for National Honor Society.<ref name="Whitehouse.gov">{{cite web |title=Hillary Rodham Clinton |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton |publisher=The White House |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref>

[[Carl Bernstein]] has chronicled the history of mental illness and depression which runs in the Rodham family. Her uncle attempted to hang himself but eventually died as an alcoholic in a fire while smoking in bed. Her other uncle died of coronary thrombosis or blood clotting in the heart. Her brothers lived "in a fog of melancholia."

Her father was emotionally abusive to her mother and the whole household; neighbors could not understand why her mother wouldn't leave him, despite her constantly expressing a desire to do so. Or his willingness to see her leave. This was before Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, so it wasn't that easy to break up a family.

Bernstein describes her father as, "a sour, unfulfilled man whose children suffered his relentless, demeaning sarcasm and misanthropic inclination, endured his embarrassing parsimony, and silently accepted his humiliation and verbal abuse of their mother....he had almost no recognizable enthusiasms or pretense to lightness as he descended into continuous bullying, ill-humor, complaint, and dejection." Her notorious temper and abusive attitude toward underlings was inherited from her father.<ref>http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-strengths-and-anger-white-house-revealed</ref> Her father was a Republican and her mother a Democrat, they used to joke how they cancelled each other's vote out.

She attended Wellesley College, which at the time was segregated by sex, and graduated in 1969 during the height of radical opposition to the Vietnam War. She graduated with honors based on her 92-page senior thesis entitled ''"There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.'' The subject was famed [[community organizer]] [[Saul Alinsky]]. When Clinton became First Lady, researchers sought access to the document, but the White House asked Wellesley to hide the embarrassment. Wellesley complied and refused access to researchers.

From 1969 to 1973, she attended Yale Law School where she worked on the editorial board of the ''Yale Review of Law and Social Action''.<ref name="arkhc">{{cite web |url=http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2744 |title=Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (1947–) |work=The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref> During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center which involved research on early childhood brain development. In the late spring of 1971 she, among others, got involved with [[Bill Clinton]]. [[Yoko Ono]], widow of [[Beatle]] songwriter [[John Lennon]], claims to have had a brief romantic fling with Hillary at this time. Ono told reporters in 2016 her election "would be a great advancement for [[LGBT]] and Women rights in America”.<ref>http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/</ref>

Ever the ambitious opportunist, she accepted an appointment to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Impeachment during the [[Watergate scandal]].<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-11-05/how-richard-nixon-created-hillary-clinton How Richard Nixon Created Hillary Clinton], Sam Tanenhaus, Nov 5, 2015. bloomberg.com</ref> Liberal sycophantic [[sexist]]s loyal to Bill Clinton deny she received this appointment on her own merit. They claim the position was offered to Bill first, and when he refused he suggested Rodham for it, which is highly unlikely. The appointment was made by John Doar, a Republican counsel on the committee. Given her Republican credentials as chairperson of the Wellesley Young Republicans, and her previous employment on Capitol Hill in 1968 in the office of the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Melvin Laird who became Nixon's Defense Secretary, and the fact she had better grades than Bill at Yale Law School, this appears to be just another leftover highly facitious claim in building the Bill Clinton myth and mystique.

After Nixon resigned she headed to Arkansas where Bill was carrying on with several other women including a childhood sweetheart who reports Hillary smelled so bad from not showering it made her gag.<ref>https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059308/bill-clinton-nicknamed-bad-smelling-hillary-the-warden-but-wanted-a-baby-to-quash-rumours-she-was-a-lesbian-his-long-term-lover-claims/</ref> Bill and Hillary had mapped out personal and political career ambitions together and a [[States Rights]] agenda to accomplish it. Bill unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1974. The two married on October 11, 1975. He was elected Governor in 1978, defeated in 1980, resumed it uninterruptedly til he became president. Bill said she only wanted a child so people wouldn't think she's a lesbian, and daughter Chelsea was born in 1980. When a [[Federal court]] ruled the Clinton's violated the [[Voting Rights Act]] with their legislative reapportionment plan,<ref>42 U.S.C. 1973</ref> their grip on Arkansas was slipping and they began making plans for a play on Wasington.

As a lawyer Hillary is an expert in medical confidentiality laws. Sam Smith of the leftist ''Progressive Review'' reported in 1998 an incident which occurred after Bill Clinton's electoral defeat in 1980. Bill Clinton arrived in a Little Rock emergency room with a drug overdose. Smith wrote,
{{Quotebox|Hillary Clinton had been notified by phone and had instructed the hospital staff that Clinton's personal physician would be arriving soon. When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident physicians on duty that night that they would never practice medicine in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton's drug problem. Reportedly, she pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave her dire warning.<ref>http://prorev.com/connex.htm</ref>}}

===Inslaw and the PROMIS technology===
'''[[Inslaw Inc]]''' developed the famous PROMIS software, an NCIC-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial institutions, utility companies, etc. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Dept., which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by US intelligence worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks, which included a "backdoor" for US intelligence to hack into. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for a company that obtained and marketed to banks copies of the stolen PROMIS software.<ref>https://youtu.be/m1GEnF1pdZ0</ref>

The PROMIS software explains why Bill Clinton never uses email. [[Dick Morris]]'s explanation - that the genuis with a 174 IQ who can work a complete ''New York Times'' crossword puzzle in 15 minutes while sitting on the toilet - does not know how to type maybe true. But Clinton most definitely knows through Hillary, who was close!y involved in these matters since the mid 1980s, there is no way ever to keep emails secret. Bill Clinton is in the habit of issueing oral instructions to close aides and the use of surrogates for communication, deniability, and no paper trail.

Several mysterious deaths are associated with the lawsuits the owners of Inslaw brought against the government for the theft of Inslaw's intellectual property that Hillary Clinton represented as the property of Systematics. In one case an entire fami!y was murdered.
*'''Larry Guerrin''' - February 1987. Investigator. Killed investigating the INSLAW case.
*'''Alan Standorf''' - January 31, 1991. Employee of [[National Security Agency]] in electronic intelligence. Standorf was a source of information for [[Danny Casolaro]] who was investigating INSLAW, [[BCCI]], etc. Standorf's dead body was found in the backseat of a car at Washington National Airport.
*'''Dennis Eisman''' - April 5, 1991. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Eisman was found shot to death.
*'''Ian Spiro''' - November 1992. Informant. Spiro had supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the INSLAW case. '''His wife and three children''' were found murdered on November 1, 1992 in their home. They all died of gunshot wounds to the head. Ian's body was found several days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cyanide poisoning.
*'''John Crawford''' - April 1993. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Reportedly died from a heart attack in Tacoma.

===Iran-Contra===
:''Main article:'' [[Iran-Contra]]
The [[Mena Airport]] in Arkansas became the logistical point for implementation of the Iran-Contra ordeal.<ref>https://youtu.be/g_epmurfIk8 ; see also Bill Plante & Michael Singer, ''Still a Strong Scent on the Mena Trail'', Letter to the Editor, [[Wall Street Journal]], 5/3/94.</ref> Gross value of the illegally imported [[narcotic]]s at Mena is said to have reached $100 million per month at its height, nearly ten times its cost of delivery in trade and arms.

Mena airport was documented to be the biggest drug-smuggling operation in the [[United States]] importing $100 million per month in cocaine.<ref>https://youtu.be/vKdPaQnZ1DA</ref> It is alleged that much of that money had been laundered through the [[Arkansas Development Finance Authority]] (ADFA), a bonding agency that Bill Clinton created to help small businesses get started. The video and Mara Leveritt's 1999 book, ''The Boys on the Tracks'' discussed that Bill Clinton's half-brother, Roger Clinton, and his bond dealer friend [[Dan Lasater]] had gone to prison for [[cocaine]]. Richard Garrett had stated on ''Unsolved Mysteries'', a television program which taped informational segments regarding the boys' on the tracks beginning in 1988,<ref>http://unsolved.com/archives/don-henry-kevin-ives</ref> that Saline County and Central Arkansas were overrun with drug-trafficking at a high level that extended to other counties and other states.

Even when Mena's gun-running operation was shut down after 1986, Mena continued to be used for illegal narcotics smuggling into the United States and the profits were pocketed by locals under then Governor [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/26/the-boys-on-the-tracks-are-back</ref> In 1989 Clinton received petitions from Arkansas citizens demanding he convene a state grand jury and investigate Mena.<ref>[http://bondiviewertest.azurewebsites.net/DataView/Article/HT?issueKey=19920501&articleKey=19920501021 Clinton Turned Blind Eye to Arkansas Contra Connections], ''High Times'', May 1992, p. 21</ref> Winston Bryant made Mena an issue in his successful bid for Arkansas [[Attorney General]] in 1990. A year later Bryant turned over state files involving Mena to Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, but Walsh did nothing with the reams of evidence.

===Mena airport===
:''Main article:'' [[Mena airport]]
[[File:320px-Contra commandas 1987.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Contras. Bill, Hillary, Vince Foster, and others ran the US end of the guns-for-dope operation. Webb Hubbell and other Clinton associates ran the money laundering schemes. By 1992, [[George H.W. Bush|Bush Senior]] owed enough of a debt for their cooperation and silence, and the Clintons had enough to blackmail the Bush's with to mount a direct challenge for the presidency. The Contra operation also gave the Clintons' opportunity to expand their contacts within the US Intelligence Community. By the time it was supposedly investigated in 1987, no one asked the obvious question: ''How were the Contras funded for 4 years before any weapons were sold to Iran?'' Within the name itself, 'Iran-Contra', implies the cover-up. Mena-Contra is more aptly fitting. Just as in the 'Benghazi investigation,' which masked Obama and Hillary supply efforts to ISIS - a bipartisan effort of which Republican [[Sen. John McCain]] was [[Obama war crimes#February 2012|also involved]].<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/09/11/exclusive-new-emails-in-benghazi-weapons-mystery.html</ref>]]
[[Hillary Clinton]] asked [[Vince Foster]] to help her spy on her husband in 1990. She wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race. Foster hired Jerry Parks, an Arkansas investigator who later worked as the head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters in [[Little Rock]]. According to Parks’s widow, “Jerry asked Vince why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary.”<ref>http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/new-documents-prove-hillary-clinton-murder-cover/#ixzz4Nvn7BWqq</ref>

Parks did other work for Foster. According to his wife, Parks delivered large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovered this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she had to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asked her husband whether he was dealing [[drugs]], and Foster explained that he paid Parks $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena.<ref>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm</ref>

"I'M A DEAD MAN," whispered Parks, as he looked up at the television screen. It was a news bulletin on the local station in Little Rock. Vincent Foster, a childhood friend of the President, had been found dead by the US Park Service outside Washington. Apparent suicide. He muttered darkly that Bill Clinton's people were "cleaning house," and he was "next on the list."

After Foster's death on July 20, 1993 Parks' home on Barrett Road was burglarized in a sophisticated operation that involved cutting the telephone lines and disarming the electronic alarm system. The dossier Parks had assembled at Hillary and Foster's request was stolen.

Two months later, in September 23, 1993, on the way back from El Chico Mexican Restaurant, at about 6:30 PM, a white Chevrolet Caprice pulled up beside him on the Chenal Parkway. An assassin let off a volley of semi-automatic fire. Parks skidded to a halt in the intersection of Highway 10. The killer jumped out and finished him off with a 9 mm handgun—two more shots into the chest at point blank range. Several witnesses watched as the gunman joined his accomplice in the waiting car and sped away.

The [[mainstream media|national media]] ignored the story of the gangland killing of the head of security of the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters.

The Little Rock Police told asked Mrs. Parks not to talk to the press until the case was solved, and she had agreed. By the spring of 1994 she was losing faith. The original detective, Tom James, had been pulled off the case. It was becoming apparent that the eyewitness accounts of the death were being ignored by the police. Witnesses had described two assassins: hefty men, with beer bellies and broad shoulders, greyish hair, in their late forties or early fifties. Yet the police kept saying that there was only one killer in the car.

Jane Parks went to visit a top official from the State Police whom she knew well from church. He told her outright that the [[murder]] was a conspiracy hatched in Hot Springs by five men who moved in the social circle of Buddy Young, the former chief of Governor Clinton's security detail and now the regional director of the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) for the south-central [[United States]]. She was given the names of the five men, and was told that they flipped coins to decide which two would carry out the execution. And finally, she was told that nothing was ever going to be done about it.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040402111006/http://terpsboy.com/Articles/JerryParks.html The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton], Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 1997</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ACyGsAAjfCI</ref><ref>https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Bill-Clinton-Unreported/dp/0895264080</ref>

===The Ives/Henry case===
The Clinton political machine and local economy had a vested interest for enrichment of themselves by continuing illegal drug smuggling after the CIA shut down the Contra supply operation and left Arkansas. On April 23, 1987, two 16 year old boys, Kevin Ives and Don Henry, stumbled upon and witnessed an aerial drop in the area of Bauxite and Alexander, Arkansas.<ref>http://www.idfiles.com</ref> Initial cause of death was claimed to be the result of passing out on a railroad track in Arkansas after smoking [[marijuana]].<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-14/news/mn-623_1_preliminary-report</ref> The ruling was made by Arkansas' State medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak.<ref>https://youtu.be/v4yO7sdYiCI</ref>

In April 1988, Kevin's body was exhumed, and another autopsy was performed, this one by Atlanta medical examiner Dr. Joseph Burton who discovered that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks. Don Henry's body was exhumed and discovered to have been stabbed in the back prior to being placed on the tracks. The deaths were indeed homocides.

Arkansas State Police (ASP) files of the investigation report the area where the two boys' bodies were found was a drop zone for drugs. Another report was that on the night the boys were killed, two witnesses saw two [[police]] officers beat up two boys and throw them in the back of a police car a short distance from where the bodies were found.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20050221103949/www.geocities.com/theoctopus22/thetraindeaths.html</ref>

John Brown, an investigator for the Saline County Sheriffs office, reported that Sheriff Pridgen and ex-prosecutor Jean Duffey talked to a pilot in [[Texas]] who admitted being a drug pilot and remembered that he had flown drugs to points near the Saline-Pulaski county lines, precisely where the boys' bodies were found. Prosecutor Duffey concluded the cover-up was because the drugs were Mena drugs.

A federal investigation was begun, but the Assistant United States Attorney, Bob Govar, reported that the FBI and DEA did not seem interested and did not furnish much help. Other reports in the state police file revealed that residents had complained about frequent low-flying planes in the area around the tracks.
[[File:14324699 1473274228.6179 funddescription.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Kevin Ives (right) and Don Henry (left) were the best of friends. The two were murdered when they stumbled across the Clinton network's dope and gun running operation in [[Mena Arkansas]].<ref>https://www.gofundme.com/donhenry-kevinives</ref> The [[Clinton body count]] originated with the Ives/Henry case and the mysterious deaths of seven witnesses, including a case the State Coroner ruled as suicide with the deceased's head found in a dumpster several blocks away.]]
During the Clinton administration in September 1995, agent William Temple of Clinton's FBI office in [[Little Rock]] told Linda Ives and her husband that it might be time for her to consider that a crime was not committed although the FBI had been working for two years on the case through its agent, Phyllis Coman.

In March 1996, the documentary, ''Obstruction of Justice'',<ref>https://youtu.be/965M_9BCYsw</ref> was released about the investigation into the murders and Dan Harmon's activities. John Brown, a former Saline county detective on the video, made the link between drug corruption in Saline County and drug corruption at Mena which began when Russell Welch, the Arkansas State police investigator in Mena, gave him a statement made by a confidential informant in federal prison which said the boys were killed because of the drug activity they had discovered and it was connected to the drug enterprise headquartered at Mena. The video explained what was known about Barry Seal and his use of airplanes to distribute cocaine. Brown told of reports he had found in the Saline County Sheriffs office dating back to 1987 and 1988 of residents living there where the boys' bodies were found complaining of planes flying over the tracks at 100 feet above ground level with their lights out.

In November 1996, Linda Ives, Kevin Ives mother, got a call from Philip Weiss who told her
he had been asked to prepare an article in the ''New York Times Magazine'' about people who hated Clinton. Weiss explained that Mark Fabiani, a White House lawyer, provided him with a set of news clippings about people who oppose the president and among those was a story about the "boys on the tracks." Linda Ives called Micah Morrison, an editorial page writer for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', who had written an article about her earlier in the year,<ref>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/MoneyInvesting/edit/o-ed4181.html</ref> inquiring about Phillip Weiss, and telling Morrison that Weiss talked about a packet of press clippings Weiss got from Fabiani including the article Morrison had written. Morrison then made wrote an article in the ''Wall Street Journal'', January 6, 1997, in which he broke the news that the White House was distributing to reporters packets of news clips to attack victims claiming it to be "conspiracy theories and innuendo."<ref>http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.html</ref>

===Other deaths in the Ives/Henry case===
*'''James "Dewey" Milam''' – May 30, 1987. Found decapitated. Dr. Fahmy Malak, the Coroner initially ruled death due to "natural causes" and an ulcer, claiming that the victim's small dog had eaten his head. Milam's head later was recovered fully intact from a trash bin several blocks away.
*'''Keith Coney''' – July 1988. Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck.
*'''Keith McMaskle''' – November 1988. Owner of a local bar. Stabbed 113 times to death.
*'''Gregory Collins''' – January 1989. Died from a gunshot wound.
*'''Jeff Rhodes''' – April 1989. He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump.
*'''Richard Winters''' – July 1989. A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery.
*'''Jordan Kettleson''' – June 1990. Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck.

===Eleanor Roosevelt and Huma Abedin===
After the death of [[Vince Foster]], whom Hillary was very close to, she is said to have fallen into a deep depression and reached out to author William Stayron who wrote about his own struggles with depression.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/books/chapters/0715-1st-bernstein.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</ref> In 1996 [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported Hillary Clinton consulted psychic mediums to contact the spirit of the deceased former First Lady [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] for advice.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/US/9606/22/hillary.book/</ref> This was not unprecedented, [[Mary Todd Lincoln]] held seances in the White House attempting to contact her loved ones. Hillary in many ways identified with Eleanor Roosevelt.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/hillarys-other-side-178552</ref>

Eleanor Roosevelt had been caught on surveillance "quite clearly having sexual intercoarse" with a younger man, [[Joe Lash]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Eroose2.jpg</ref> The story was leaked to the press.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cVzNFWV_rvEC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=westbrook+pegler+joe+lash&source=bl&ots=IMvenoPmub&sig=ZR7pa9GcKAsAY08BolOOHWgviPk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLuJzRsJDQAhXprVQKHfV2D6kQ6AEIezAT#v=onepage&q=westbrook%20pegler%20joe%20lash&f=false]. Columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on Mrs. Roosevelt's relations with Joe Lash.</ref> Eleanor arranged a sham marriage between Lash and a friend of hers', [[Gertrude Pratt]], to deflect criticism and attention. Eleanor Roosevelt's [[bisexual]]ity has become the focus of biographers and scholars.<ref>http://www.uis.edu/lgbtqa/eleanorroosevelt/</ref>
[[File:120726-huma-clinton.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Since 1996 the two have been together, with Abedin traveling the country as Clinton's "body woman."<ref>https://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/07/how-close-are-huma-abedin-and-hillary-clinton-169489?slide=0</ref>]]
Bill Clinton outed Hillary as a bisexual.<ref>http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-bisexual-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-interview/</ref> When stories of Hillary's [[lesbian]]ism abounded, Hillary held a press conference to deny the rumors.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hillary-clinton-not-lesbian-article-1.246111</ref> Not long after, Bill Clinton presided over an informal wedding ceremony between Hillary's longtime close associate and confidant, [[Huma Abedin]], who had been working at Hillary's side since 1994, and Rep. [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/dyke-hillary-dyke-hillary-6403108</ref> It was an odd relationship between the two; Weiner lived in New York and commuted to Washington when Congress was in session; Huma, like Hillary. spent the vast majority of time away from their spouse while Hillary and Huma travelled the globe in Hillary's role as Secretary of State.<ref>http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/hillary-lesbian-2.html/</ref><ref>http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-huma-make-surprise-visit-nyc-pride-parade/comment-page-4/</ref>

Weiner was driven from Congress in a sexting scandal. Later it was revealed Weiner's personal computer contained more than a half million emails related to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's email scandal. When the news broke, Hillary didn't separate herself from Huma by firing her, which Huma alone would be responsible for unauthorized State Department information being found on Anthony Weiner's personal computer. Like Nixon, she chose the path of loyalty to subordinates over making a clean break with people accused of lawbreaking, as Reagan had done when he fired [[Oliver North]] or John Kennedy when he fired [[Bay of Pigs|Allen Dulles]]. If elected, the nation faced a [[constitutional crisis]] over her actions, failures, and negligence.

==Scandals 1975–2001, partial list==
:''For a more complete list, see [[Hillary Clinton First Lady]]'' and ''[[Iran-Contra]]''
<center>{{Cquote|<big>If [[Reaganomics]] works at all, Whitewater could become the Western hemisphere's Mecca.</big>|20px|20px|Hillary Clinton in 1981 as reported by [[David Brock]] in ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham'', p. 196.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=mhOoB-ejGIMC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=If+reaganomics+eorks+whitewater+will+be+good&source=bl&ots=oNZfZNH1fw&sig=6oaim2Msj5o_HLBpme7LbdZ8v1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy_Ok3bfPAhWr1IMKHQFzAqMQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=If%20reaganomics%20eorks%20whitewater%20will%20be%20good&f=false ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham''], David Brock, Simon and Schuster, Feb 2, 1998, p. 196</ref>}}</center>
Only when she met Bill in 1971 did her political views flower and she became a [[Democrat]]. The Clinton marriage is fashioned upon precepts of ''The Art of the Deal''. She allowed him to chase any woman he saw fit, and he allowed her to run the [[Arkansas]] Governor's Mansion and [[White House]] as she saw fit.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-507762/Why-Hillary-Clinton-let-husband-Bill-seduce-woman-sight.html Why Hillary Clinton let husband Bill seduce any woman in sight], By SALLY BEDELL SMITH, 15 January 2008. www.dailymail.co.uk</ref> This was the deal Bill Clinton offered America, two for the price of one.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/18/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-wife-hillary-clinton-aspiring-first-lady-role-model.html?pagewanted=all THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Candidate's Wife; Hillary Clinton as Aspiring First Lady: Role Model, or a 'Hall Monitor' Type?], By MAUREEN DOWD, ''New York Times'', May 18, 1992.</ref>
[[File:Arkansas State Flag.gif|right|thumb|The Arkansas State Flag. The top star above Arkansas represents the slave holding Confederacy, an Act signed into law by Clinton.]]
Of the two, Hillary is the actual brains of the operation. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary and her law partners worked with clients looting depositor's money from Arkansas Savings and Loans which her husband regulated.<ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/ Independent Counsel Memo Laying Out Criminal Case against Hillary Clinton in Whitewater Land Scandal], JANUARY 28, 2016. www.judicialwatch.org</ref> She also pocketed large amounts of cash from complicated commodity future trading straddles.<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-and-wall-street-24-years-enriching-each-other The Clintons and Wall Street: 24 Years of Enriching Each Other], By Richard W. Behan / CounterPunch, February 26, 2016.</ref> As the family breadwinner, Hillary mocked and ridiculed stay-at-home moms.<ref>[http://time.com/4054623/clinton-dunham-tea-cookies/ This Was the Hillary Clinton Comment That Sparked Lena Dunham’s Political Awareness], Denver Nicks, ''Time'', Sept. 29, 2015.</ref>
===Arkansas and US First Lady===
As First Lady she holds the distinction of being the only First Lady in [[United States]] history to come under [[criminal]] investigation both as Arkansas First Lady and in the White House. Having escaped indictment for Whitewater crimes and lying to Congress, she was the first First Lady to run and be elected to Congress while her husband was serving as President.

===Travelgate (''a primer for millenials'')===
As the 2016 election day approached, the elite [[mainstream media]] remained dumbfounded as to why the American people still deemed Hillary Clinton untrustworthy. The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' revisited one of the first scandals to hit the Clinton White House:
{{Quotebox|Under criticism the White House changed its story. They said that they were just trying to cut unneeded staff and save money. Then they said they were trying to impose a competitive bidding process. They tried a new explanation—the travel office shake-up was connected to Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. (Almost immediately Mr. Gore said that was not true.) The White House then said it was connected to a campaign pledge to cut the White House staff by 25%. Finally they claimed the workers hadn’t been fired at all but placed on indefinite “administrative leave."}}
''"Sound familiar? It's just a cough...no, it's just allergies...no, it's heat and dehydration...no, it's pneumonia..."''<ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-17/why-dont-they-trust-her-look-one-hillary-clintons-first-ever-scandals</ref>
{{Quotebox|It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a high White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs—their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins—to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign. And she wanted to give the travel office business itself to loyalists. There was a travel company based in Arkansas with long ties to the Clintons. There was a charter travel company founded by Harry Thomason, a longtime friend and fundraiser, which had provided services in the 1992 campaign. If the travel office were privatized and put to bid, he could get the business.}}
''Deja vu'' all over again...
{{quotebox|'''Clinton Scandal Ritual:''' lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. 'As I’ve repeatedly said . . .'"}}
For a quarter of a century the Clinton name has been synonymous with scandal.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB887244288642713000</ref>

===Death of Vince Foster===
Vince Foster was the highest ranking [[Executive Branch]] official killed in office since [[John F. Kennedy]]. At the time of Kennedy's murder, the killing should have bern handled by the [[Dallas]] police [[homicide]] division. However federal officials and the [[Secret Service]] removed the body and flew it back to [[Washington DC]], interfering with an ongoing investigation. After that botched affair, federal laws were passed making various assaults on or killing of federal officials a federal crime. The new law made the [[FBI]] the lead agency in Foster's death investigation. Various circumstances however left the job in the hands of US Park rangers, and not even the more experienced DC homicide police were involved. Most profoundly, Bill Clinton's firing of the FBI Director the day before Foster's body was discovered in a federal park, left the Bureau stunned, leaderless, and in chaos.
====FBI files relating to Hillary missing from the National Archives====
[[File:Vince-foster-murder-clinton-696x445.png|right|300px|thumb|The Vince Foster gun. The weapon used to kill Foster and the gun found at the scene, among other pertinent facts, raise inexplicable questions.]]
FBI files relating to Hillary's role in the [[Vince Foster]]'s death investigation are now missing from the National Archives.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html</ref>

During the 2016 presidential campaign, in August 2016 [[Vince Foster]] was back in the news. A [[fake news]] story was planted in the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' alleging Foster killed himself because he had been humiliated by Hillary Clinton in a staff meeting one week before killing himself. This story sounds more plausible then the official explanation the ''Washington Post'' has cited for more than two decades - Beth Foster was depressed because he had done Hillary's tax returns,<ref>See for example ''Washington Post'', "The 1993 suicide of White House counsel Vincent Foster, hard on the heels of the travel-office imbroglio and his filing of delinquent Whitewater Corp. tax returns." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm Untangling Whitewater], By Dan Froomkin, Washingtonpost.com Staff.</ref> there are problems with it. Mainly, that according to the First Lady's schedule now at the Clinton Library in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton was in [[Japan]] and the Far East more than two weeks before Foster's body was discovered. She returned to the United States on July 18, spent two days in Arkansas, and wasn't scheduled to return to Washington till after Foster's body was found. Numerous other sources corroborate her schedule.

===Illegal fundraising, 1996===
{{Main|Chinagate fundraising scandal}}
The Chinagate was a campaign finance controversy in which the Clinton's illegally took money from foreign governments and military establishments. Like the Nixon administration, however, it was impossible to get the government to investigate itself, at least to any acceptable or just conclusion before the Clinton's term of office was up.

Agents of China sought to give contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996 presidential campaign]] in violation of US law barring non-American citizens from donating money to American politicians and political parties.<ref>Woodward, Bob and Duffy, Brian, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/china1.htm "Chinese Embassy Role In Contributions Probed"], ''Washington Post'', February 13, 1997.</ref>

An unclassified [[United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs|U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs]] report issued in 1998 stated that both James Riady and his father Mochtar "had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." According to journalist [[Bob Woodward]], details of the relationship came from highly classified intelligence information supplied to the committee by both the CIA and [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]].<ref>Woodward, Bob, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm "Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence"], ''Washington Post'', Feb. 10, 1998.</ref>
[[File:MOCTAR.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Hillary Clinton with Mochtar Riady at a fundraiser during the [[Chinagate]] scandal. Mochtar Riady, along with Bill Clinton's financial godfather Jackson Stephens, brought the [[BCCI]] to America, a front for international dope dealers and arms traffickers.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hk7XCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT61&lpg=PT61&dq=mochtar+riady+bcci&source=bl&ots=58F2SxmNWF&sig=ZV6dddrtUdo7dmmCfjVhgQZOuLE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpwvS7mvDTAhVH9mMKHc_MC5QQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=mochtar%20riady%20bcci&f=false]</ref>]]
The relationship between John Huang, the Riady Family, and the Clintons, goes back to the late 1970s in Little Rock, Arkansas. The patriarch of the family, Mochtar Riady, is an [[Indonesia]]n of [[Chinese]] descent who built up the Lippo Group empire. In the mid-1970s, Mochtar Riady planned to expand his business into the United States and began looking for partners. He met the Stephens family of Arkansas and entered into various joint ventures with Stephens Inc.

The Stephens famiy were in fact the original owners of the American branch of the notorious [[Bank of Credit and Commerce International]] (BCCI) in a joint venture with the Riady's in the late 1970s and 1980s.<ref>mlhttp://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/06early.htm</ref> It was shut down in the early 1990s in an enormous worldwide criminal money laundering scandal.

In Little Rock the Riadys met then-Governor Bill Clinton and financially supported Clinton’s gubernatorial campaigns throughout the 1980s.

After Riady pledged $1 million in support of then-Governor Clinton's campaign for the presidency 1992, contributions made by Huang had been reimbursed with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account Riady maintained at Lippo Bank and then distributed to Huang in cash. Also, contributions made by Lippo Group entities operating in the United States were reimbursed with wire transfers from foreign Lippo Group entities.<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm "James Riady Pleads Guilty"], Department of Justice, press release, January 11, 2001.</ref><ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/12/huang.sentence/ "Former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang pleads guilty"], ''CNN.com'', Aug. 12, 1999.</ref>

Huang visited the White House 78 times while working as a DNC fund-raiser.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/time9610.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Timeline"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> James Riady visited the White House 20 times including 6 personal visits with President Clinton.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/characters.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Cast of Characters"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> As a key fund-raiser he raised $3.4 million for the party.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm "Campaign Finance Key Player: John Huang"], ''Washington Post'', July 27, 1997.</ref>

Immediately prior to joining the DNC, Huang worked in the Clinton's [[Commerce Department]] as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs giving him access to classified intelligence on China.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/US/9905/25/cox.report.highlights/ "Highlights of U.S. report on alleged China spying"], ''CNN.com'', May 25, 1999.</ref>

Under questioning by Sen. Don Nickles during congressional investigations Clinton private investigator Terry Lenzner identified [[Cody Shearer]] as a liaison between Lenzner's firm, Investigative Group International, and the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe. The tribe had donated more than $100,000 to the [[Democratic Party]] hoping that the Clinton administration would intervene on the tribes behalf in a dispute over drilling rights on tribal land. Lenzner's firm had been hired by the Clinton's to discredit Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky and others, and had been retained to uncover compromising links between Sen. Don Nickles-opposed the tribe's claims—and local oil interests.

===Whitewater crimes===

An April 10, 1998 memo in the Whitewater Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) summarized Hillary Clinton's “crimes under consideration” for [[prosecution]].
{{Quotebox|Between January 1994 and February 1996 both Hillary Clinton and [Webster] Hubbell made numerous sworn statements to the [Resolution Trust Corporstion], the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the OIC. Each of these reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories relating to: how RLF [Rose Law Firm] came to be retained by MGSL [Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan]; Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL before state agencies’; Hubbell’s representations to the RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] and FDIC regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; and the removal of records from the [Rose Law Firm].}}
[[File:Chelsea Hubbell.jpg|right|375px|thumb|Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton has become the poster child of [[white privilege]] for a generation. Webster Hubbell, an old "family friend," gave up a lifetime appointment on the Arkansas Supreme Court to move to Washington with the Clinton's and serve four years in federal prison on a fraud conviction.]]
According to prosecutors, Hillary drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande transaction. Her concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison, were the subject of an OIC obstruction of justice probe.

The memo included substantial evidence depicting Hillary, Hubbell, and Vincent Foster, as complicit in activities that “facilitated crimes.” Hubbell was convicted of fraudulent billing practices and sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and fined $135,000.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060500908.html</ref> The memo noted that Hillary “destroyed” her personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty. The evidence covers:

{{Quotebox|'''Castle Grande.''' “The Castle Grande transactions were crimes.” The statement is followed by an explicit six-paragraph dissection of the land-flipping scheme.

'''[[Madison Guaranty S&L]].''' Hillary minimized the role she played in seeking state regulatory assistance for the corrupt savings and loan, headed by key Clinton financial and political supporter [[James McDougal]]. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

'''Vincent Foster and the Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records.''' The Rose billing records were a key piece of evidence in the probe. They were missing for years. After Foster’s death, the OIC memo notes "evidence supports the inference that personal documents which Hillary Clinton did not want disclosed were located in Foster’s office at the time of his death and then removed.”

'''Removal of Records from Vincent Foster’s Office.''' “ [O]n the afternoon of July 21st Bernard Nussbaum, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow two career DOJ employees to review the documents in Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, Susan Thomases, and Maggie Williams (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) exchanged 10 separate phones calls … That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as ‘personal’ to the Clintons.”

'''Hiding the Billing Records.''' “On the evening of July 22nd, Thomas Castleton … assisted Williams [Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton chief of staff] in carrying a box of personal documents up to … a closet in Hillary Clinton’s office. The closet is approximately 30 feet from the table in the Book Room, where the billing records were found 2 years later…."

'''Bying the Silence of a Co-Conspirator.''' Hubbell received several “jobs” from Clinton supporters for which he apparently did little or no work. During a taped conversation in prison, Hubbell appears to acknowledge that he withheld information from the OIC. Several of Hubbell’s job-providers fell most strongly within the hush money allegation.}}

The National Archives is withholding additional documents critical to understanding Clinton’s full role in the Whitewater scandal.<ref>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/</ref>

===Evidence tampering and obstruction===
After the death of White House staffer Vince Foster, 20 year Secret Service veteran Henry O' Neill testified before Congress he observed as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, carry boxes of papers out of Foster's office and up to the White House residence quarters on First Lady Hillary Clinton's instructions.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html Whitewater Lost and Found Records], Nightline Transcripts, January 30, 1996. npr.org</ref> The documents related to work performed by Jerry Parks, the head of security for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign.<ref>[http://contrariansview.org/onashisite/WebVAX/Foster/AEPonQuinn10Oct96.html Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interview], Quinn in the Morning Show, WRRK 97 FM Pittsburgh, October 10, 1996</ref> Under [[oath]], Hillary Clinton denied issuing the instructions or receiving the documents. The documents evidence in the investigation of the death of Vince Foster. Parks was gunned down in a gangland-style shooting in Arkansas two months after Foster's death.<ref>[http://prorev.com/2006/08/strange-death-of-jerry-parks-and-even.htm THE STRANGE DEATH OF JERRY PARKS AND EVEN STRANGER DEATH OF DR DAVID MILLSTEIN], ''Progressive Review'', Sam Smith, Editor, August 23, 2006</ref>

Two years later in 1995 some of the evidence was retrieved from the private White House living quarters. FBI investigators determined Hillary Clinton's fingerprints were on the documents.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-04-30/pdf/CREC-1996-04-30-pt1-PgH4166-3.pdf#page=2 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: First Lady's fingerprints on billing records"] (April 30, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4167-8.
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-05-10/pdf/CREC-1996-05-10-pt1-PgH4880-3.pdf#page=1 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints on billing records II"] (May 10, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4880-1.</ref>
===Pay-to-play pardons===
[[Marc Rich]] is the biggest tax cheat in American history. Rich fled the country. He was a big donor to the Clintons and the Democratic party, so [[Bill Clinton]] wanted to pardon him. [[Eric Holder]], who later served as Barack Obama's Attorney General, arranged the pardons.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/16/holder.confirmation/ Former FBI director: Holder was 'used' in Rich pardon], [[CNN]]</ref> Former President [[Jimmy Carter]] publicly called it "disgraceful".<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carter-rich-pardon-disgraceful/ Carter: Rich Pardon 'Disgraceful'], CBSNews.com staff AP February 21, 2001</ref> Rich's wife then donated at least $450,000 to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

==Attacking victims of sexual assault==
Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos writes in his memoirs of the Clinton 'War Room' about assignments to belittle and kill victim's allegations of sexual abuse. "We have to destroy her story," Mrs. Clinton instructed of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign in 1991.

In January 2016, Esquire magazine reported on a gathering in the fashionable Upper East Side apartment of the chief executive of HBO. Several conflicted past and present Clinton surrogates discussed how the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had sexual encounters with, or been [[sexual assault|sexually assaulted]] by former President Bill Clinton.

{{Quotebox|The conversation, relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously, captures the deeper debate unfolding among [[liberal]]-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clinton's leadership on women's issues with her past involvement in her husband's efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct.<ref>[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41327/new-york-times-clinton-rumors/ The New York Times Is Obsessed with 2 Things. You Already Know What They Are.], By Charles P. Pierce, ''Esquire'', Jan 20, 2016.</ref>}}
The conundrum these conflicted Clinton surrogates face is how to explain their own past participation in sliming and vilifying women who came forward with accusations against the President of the United States with a history of untoward, and even violent, sexual misconduct to a generation of Millennials unfamiliar with the brazen history of the pair:
{{Quotebox|Even some [[Democrat]]s who participated in the effort to discredit the women acknowledge privately that today, when Mrs. Clinton and other women have pleaded with the authorities on college campuses and in workplaces to take any allegation of sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously, such a campaign to attack the women's [[character]] would be unacceptable.}}
But such a public campaign of abuse and ridicule of the victim ''was'' acceptable under the Clintons, by Clinton media and [[Hollywood]] surrogates. And virtually all historical and inside eyewitness accounts, dating back to Arkansas and the White House years, point to Hillary Clinton as the source who made it a mission.

===Intimidation and blackmail===
{{Cquote|When Hillary hired this fleet of detectives to go around examining all of the woman who had been identified with Clinton. Not for the purpose of divorcing Clinton. Not for the purpose of getting him to stop, but for the purpose of developing blackmail material on these women to cow them into silence that had a [[Nixon]]ian quality that I hold against her and I continue to.|20px|20px|[[Dick Morris]]<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/10/31/dick-morris-i-left-when-hillary-hired-secret-police-to-go-after-woman-victimized-by-bill/ Dick Morris: I Left When Hillary Hired Secret Police to Go After Woman Victimized by Bill], by [[Breitbart.com]], 31 Oct 2014.</ref>}}
One of the more abhorrent aspects of Hillary Clinton's personality is a well documented pattern by multiple Clinton confidants and advisors of intimidation and blackmail toward female victims of Mr. Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. Mrs. Clinton is accredited with introducing the [[sexist]] [[pejorative]], 'bimbo', into the American political [[lexicon]] to disparage victims of sexual assault by the rich and powerful.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WiQRBN8igE Hillary Clinton calls Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims "Bimbo Eruptions"] youtube.com</ref> The politicalinsider.com identified the problem,
{{Quotebox|One of the most incredible things about Hillary Clinton running for President is that there is an extraordinary long list of scandals that younger voters have never heard of. Just trying to keep up with the multiple decades of corruption and criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton which happened long before the recent email scandal is overwhelming.<ref>[http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-woman-who-was-sexually-assaulted-by-bill-clinton-drops-a-bomb-on-hillary-whoa/ A Woman Who Was Sexually Assaulted by Bill Clinton Drops a BOMB on Hillary], thepoliticalinsider.com</ref>}}
The ''New York Times'' noted before the 2016 [[primary election]] season began that the ''’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women'', and Hillary Clinton certainly was not, by any account, a victim, or a victim of her husband's faithlessness.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html ’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', JAN. 20, 2016.</ref>
In the recent book, ''The Clinton's War on Women'', the authors cite a [[Sociology|sociological]] phenomena known as [[elite deviance]] in a society where the elites no longer believe the rules apply to them and their behavior is justified and facilitated by a cadre of [[sycophant]]s, [[apologist]]s, supporters, and surrogates collectively known as the Clinton smear machine.<ref>http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-hillary-clinton-smear-machine/</ref><ref>''[http://greatbookcorner.com/data/thepopularbook.site/T/the-clintons-war-on-women-roger-stone--93pfuGF9wiHCc6-8BX16-8ZvB6-8AVI6d.pdf The Clinton's War on Women]'', pp. 16-17 pdf.</ref>

To locate, stalk, harass, and intimidate the women, Betsy Wright was put in charge of the operation. According to [[Carl Bernstein]], "Betsy's operation became known as 'The Defense Department', and Wright was sometimes known as the 'secretary of defense'"<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=KG8oDvWH3ZYC&pg=PT612&dq=Carl+Bernstein+betsey+wright+defense+department+clinton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x4RWU4edAcLjsATguYHYAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Carl%20Bernstein%20betsey%20wright%20defense%20department%20clinton&f=false A Woman in Charge], Carl Bernstein, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Jun 5, 2007</ref> For this Jack Palladino, Terry Lenzner, Ivan Duda, Jerry Parks,<ref>http://bonedjello.com/Articles/The%20Murder%20of%20Jerry%20Parks.html</ref> Anthony Pellicano, and others were employed.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31278/ The real story behind the Clinton body count], ''[[WorldNetDaily]]'', 07/13/2005. Review of Richard Poe’s, ''Hillary’s Secret War.'' wnd.com</ref><ref>[http://alamo-girl.com/02742.htm PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES], SECTION: SECRET POLICE, Revised 8/10/00. http://alamo-girl.com</ref><ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/foster.html Reports Tie Clinton Sexcapades to Foster's Death]. mega.nu</ref>

To silence the women, all sorts of threats and intimidation were common, such as murdering the family pet on the doorstep or blatant threats against the lives of their children.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1v5e4lZiS08C&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=pellicano%2Bhillary&source=bl&ots=2QSRhFU8QY&sig=zFCzv6MqE1JDMGwraPnD1XL3TB8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyuqCkgYDNAhVLz2MKHdJwA9AQ6AEI3AEwIg#v=onepage&q=pellicano%2Bhillary&f=false Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, WND Books, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44416/ PI 'admits' Hillary paid him to harass Willey], WND, 11/07/2007.</ref> [[Pornographer]] impresario [[Larry Flynt]] was called to boot a $1,000,000 reward to anybody to come forward with sexual innuendo, whether true or not, to attack Clinton's enemies with.<ref>[http://observer.com/2000/08/its-poker-night-with-larry-flynt-porn-king-discourses-on-sex-gore/ It’s Poker Night With Larry Flynt! Porn King Discourses on Sex, Gore], By Andrew Goldman, ''New York Observer'', 08/28/00</ref>
====Sexual blackmail of political opponents====
Hillary's obsession with sexual blackmail isn't limited to compromising and silencing disgruntled mistresses or women Bill Clinton assaulted, it became a ready tool against political opponents as well. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an obsession with opposition research and digging up dirt on opponents.<ref>https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-already-knows-the-bad-thing-you-said?utm_term=.ry2yGw3Go#.of4rD4yDJ</ref> As Hillary's emails reveal, she often spent more time studying domestic critics views of her activities than the actual job of secretary of state. A new generation of millennials is becoming familiar with the term, "oppo", which is the first step in blackmailing and silencing media critics or candidates for public office. The Clintons have raised it from muckraking and [[dirty tricks]] to a high art form.

To political opponents and the women, Clinton surrogates routinely use the material, truth not being a factor, dug up by Hillary's investigator's to slime anyone publicly who wouldn't fall into line. A recent lawsuit filed just days after it became evident Trump was considering using the case of Joe Epstein in the election is intended to neutralize criticism.<ref>https://youtu.be/EPlDvVwER7A</ref> And the surrogates relish their jobs. Indeed, many Clinton supporters believe this is the essence of [[politics]] — slander, defamation, and demonization of living human beings — not formulation or discussion of public policy.

In what perhaps may or may not be a [[Freud]]ian slip Hillary Clinton titled her last book, ''Hard Choices''.

===Rape allegations===
====as Arkansas Attorney General====
The general pattern of the Clinton's being above the law is illustrated the Juanita Broadderick case from 1978.

Rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media. In an interview with ''Dateline NBC,'' that aired after the impeachment trial, Broaddrick claimed she had indeed been [[rape]]d by then Arkansas [[Attorney General]] Bill Clinton.<ref name="NBCinterview">''Dateline NBC'': February 24, 1999. ''The Washington Post'' [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm published a story about the interview] on February 25, 1999.</ref> The abuse put Broadderick in a quandry: who could she turn for help in a case against the state's highest ranking [[law enforcement]] official?

Broaddrick first met Clinton when he made a visit to her nursing home during his first gubernatorial bid. Broaddrick offered to volunteer for the campaign, and Clinton invited her to stop by the campaign office in Little Rock.<ref name=NYT>''New York Times'': [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/24/us/on-tortuous-route-sexual-assault-accusation-against-clinton-resurfaces.html On Tortuous Route, Sexual Assault Accusation Against Clinton Resurfaces]. February 24, 1999.</ref> She contacted the office a few weeks later when she was in Little Rock for a nursing home conference. Clinton said he would not be in the office that day and suggested they meet at her hotel’s coffee shop instead. Upon his arrival, however, he allegedly requested that they instead have coffee in her room to avoid a crowd of reporters in the lobby. Broaddrick agreed.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says the two spoke briefly in her room, then Clinton suddenly kissed her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick pushed Clinton away and told him she was married and not interested, but he persisted. As recounted in the NBC interview:<ref name="NBCinterview" />
{{quotebox|"Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.” }}
When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said “No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rodgers. Rodgers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says she did not tell her then-husband about the incident.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name=Slate>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html "Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?"]. ''Slate'' (magazine)''. March 3, 1999.</ref>

At the time, she was having an affair with her eventual second husband, David Broaddrick. He remembers her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick recalled incident occurred in the spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name="Slate" /> The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton's official schedule for the date,<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999 /> but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Three weeks later Broaddrick attended an event where the Clintons would be in attendance at the home of a local dentist.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick said she was “in denial,” and felt guilty, thinking that she had given Clinton the wrong idea by letting him into her room.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> When she arrived she says, her friend who had picked the Clintons up from the airport told her that Hillary Clinton had asked if she would be at the event.<ref name=FOXinterview>''FOX News'': Interview with Sean Hannity. June 10, 2003. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 Excerpt] available via YouTube.</ref> Broaddrick says Clinton did not speak to her at the event, but his wife Hillary approached her, took her hand, and said 'I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.”<ref name="FOXinterview" /> When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Mrs. Clinton held on to her and said, "Do you understand? Everything that you do."<ref name="FOXinterview" /> Broaddrick says she felt [[nausea]]ted and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Mrs. Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet.<ref name="FOXinterview" />

In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much."<ref name=WSJ>''Wall Street Journal'': [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB919379691540145000.html Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press]. February 19, 1999.</ref> Broaddrick said that in 1991, Clinton called her out of a state nursing standards meeting to try to apologize. In response to his apologies, as she told ''[[The Washington Post]]'', "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999>Kurtz, Howard (February 25, 1999). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"]. ''[[Washington Post]]''. p. A15.</ref> Darden also attended the meeting, and said she saw Broaddrick talking to Clinton in the hallway.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Lisa Myers if NBC, who conducted the ''Dateline'' interview, added she had no reason to doubt the veracity of Broadderick's accusations.

====as Rhodes Scholar====
An instance of media coverup, or failing to ask the right questions while promoting the Clintons and their careers is illustrated in Clinton's time at Oxford University.

The earliest known incident of a reported rape is from 1969 while at Oxford in England on the
[[Rhodes Scholar]]ship program. As is common knowledge, women's rights, [[prosecution]] of offenders, and protection for rape victims in 1969 were not what they are today.

The prestigious Rhodes Scholarship is an elite program intended to cement Anglo-American relations and train tomorrows world leaders. Clinton was recommended for the program in 1968 by his Georgetown Professor Carol Quigley and his political mentor, the notorious [[segregation]]ist Senator J. William Fulbright. It's a two-year program. Clinton received a draft deferment from conscription into the US Army during the Vietnam war for his enrollment in the program. It has been stated that 99% of all Rhodes Scholars graduate, the only cause of failing to graduate being death. Dropping out, or being thrown out, is/was virtuslly unheard of.

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who came forward saying Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near the University. A retired State Department employee confirmed that he spoke with the family. The employee said he believed the story of Miss Wellstone.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070516192906/http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm]</ref>

"There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma, But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape." The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies. "I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study."<ref>http://albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm</ref>

The victim's family declined to pursue the case; Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-121742-7463r/?page=all |title=The missing Clinton women|author=The Washington Times | publisher= Washington Times |date= June 24, 2004}}</ref>

In his book, ''Unlimited Access'', former FBI agent [[Gary Aldrich]] reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster.

Having been thrown out of Oxford, Clinton lost his draft deferment. Clinton entered Oxford in October 1968, according to David Maraniss, and received a draft induction in late July 1969. Yet the focus of news reporting in the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 presidential election]] was on championing Clinton as a 'Rhodes Scholar' while never asking how it was possible for a Rhodes Scholar with a draft deferment to receive a draft notice. The issue focused on his failure to report for induction rather than the fact that he ''was not'' a Rhodes Scholar, that he had been thrown out of Oxford, or the reason for being thrown out.

====Other assaults====
Most cited by name in this section of assault victims are of women who have spoken about the crimes they've suffered, although some have been intimidated into silence after going public. Others remain fearful to come forward.

In 1972, a twenty-two-year-old woman told Yale University’s campus police that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, and although no charges were filed, a retired policeman confirmed the incident to ''Capitol Hill Blue''. The woman herself was also tracked down and confirmed it, though she elected to stay anonymous.

In 1974 a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference, groping her and forcing his hand inside her blouse. Although she complained to her faculty advisor, who confronted Clinton, the complaint again failed to go anywhere. The student left the school shortly after the incident, and more recently confirmed the incident. Several former students also confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and also said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students.

Arkansas state troopers assigned to protect Clinton have knowledge of at least seven other complaints from women who said Clinton forced himself on them sexually or attempted to do so.<ref>[http://www.shwiggie.com/articles/clintons.html Living with the Clintons, Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed], By David Brock, 1993</ref>

A Little Rock legal secretary named Carolyn Moffet claimed that in 1979, she met the governor at a political fundraiser and shortly afterward received an invitation to meet him in a hotel room. She was escorted there by a state trooper. When she arrived he was sitting on a couch wearing an undershirt and nothing else, and angrily assaulted her. She was able to escape before being raped. Moffet received threatening phone calls. “He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I’d forget that it ever happened...I haven’t forgotten it. You don’t forget crude men like that.”<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/</ref>

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982 told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-trashing-of-clintons-women-6422690</ref> Clinton media surrogates publicly hype and boast of Clinton's manliness and ''machismo'' for his sexual conquest if Miss America.

An Arkansas state employee named Paula Corbin filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after she said the governor exposed himself and demanded sex in a Little Rock hotel room. President Clinton finally settled the case with Paula Corbin in 1998 with an $850,000 cash payment.<ref>
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/18/jones/</ref>

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser said Clinton invited her to his hotel room when he was in Washington in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas state trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was alright. Then, she said, Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. ‘’My husband and children deserve better than that..I wasn’t raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man...I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn’t take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on.” She said she learned other women had similar stories during Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She has since married and left Washington and retreated from public view.<ref>http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/255828</ref>

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s campaign plane in 1992, reported that he exposed himself to her, groped her, and made explicit sexual remarks. A video filmed on board the plane by [[ABC News]] showed an obviously drunken Clinton with his hand on intimate parts of another young flight attendant. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.<ref>http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/12/29/millennials-guide-bill-clintons-20-sex-scandals/</ref>

Kathleen Willey was a volunteer at the White House when Clinton grabbed her, fondled her, and pressed her hand against himself during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a [[60 Minutes]] interview, became a target of a White House–directed smear campaign after she went public.<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Target-Caught-Crosshairs-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0974670162 Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, World Ahead Publishing, Nov 6, 2007 ISBN 978-0974670164 ISBN 0974670162</ref> In 1998, just before Willey was to testify in the Paula Jones trial, Willey had a disturbing encounter where she was approached by a jogger near her home. The complete stranger asked her menacing questions about her children, naming them by name. According to Willey, "I'll never forget that look in his eyes . . . He just looked at me and he said, 'You're just not getting the message, are you?'" On Hardball in 1999, [[MSNBC]] host [[Chris Matthews]] identified the mysterious jogger as [[Cody Shearer]].<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-other-secret-dossier/article/2011477</ref>

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House and smesr machine.

Peter Baker in ''The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton'', which the ''Washington Post'' describes as the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that in the files of the independent prosecutor lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women. Baker noted
{{Quotebox|“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/The-Breach-Inside-Impeachment-William/dp/1476730075 The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton], Peter Backer, December 4, 2012, p. 138</ref>}}

On November 21, 2014, columnist Joan Vennochi of the ''a [[Boston Globe]]'' wrote, “Rape allegations hurt Bill Cosby but sail past Bill Clinton.”

“Power—who has it, who doesn’t, and how it can for years insulate the holder of it—is the common thread between Cosby, Clinton, and their accusers,” Vennochi wrote. Clinton apologists, surrogates, sycophants, and spin-meisters srgur their public policies are more important than his private failings.

“Meanwhile, the Clinton spin machine did its best to portray his accusers as ‘nuts or sluts,’ ...against women who dare to hold men accountable for their actions,” Vennochi wrote.<ref>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/21/rape-allegations-hurt-bill-cosby-but-sail-past-bill-clinton/YTIsUoXS2uxrW1mW2JSuRM/story.html</ref>

===Defends a pedophile===
The next job after the Children's Defense Fund the self described 'defender of children' handled was the case of a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl. The rapist, facing 30 years to life in prison, Hillary plea bargained down to time served - two months in county jail - by attacking the victim who was to young to testify in a court of law to defend herself.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/ AUDIO: Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes], Washington Free Beacon Staff, June 15, 2014. freebeacon.com</ref>

In court documents Hillary wrote to the judge about the young victim as:
{{Cquote|emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing...children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.<ref>[https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/ Video: Hillary Clinton brags about getting a pedophile off the hook], By Brandon Turbeville, January 25, 2016. www.intellihub.com</ref>}}
In 2006 the victim, now an adult heard for the first time Hillary Clinton laughing about her victory in the case. The victim spoke out,
{{Cquote|Hillary Clinton took me through hell. ...You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing. ... she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good...<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html She Lied: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says], Josh Rogan, ''The Daily Beast'', 06.20.14.</ref> }}

Mrs. Clinton knew the child rapist to be guilty, and joked about it. Clinton mainstream surrogates, apologists, and sycophants [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin%20control spin] the episode to prove how 'tough minded', 'dedicated, and 'fair' she is.

In 2014 Hillary Clinton again lied about the case claiming she asked to be relieved.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/ Politifact: Did Hillary Clinton ask to be 'relieved' from representing an accused rapist in 1970s?], By Steve Contorno, July 17th, 2014. politifact.com</ref>

===Joe Epstein===
When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Bill became a friend and business associate with a character known in the media as 'the billionaire pervert'. His new friend is involved in a child sex trafficking ring. He is a registered sex offender for sex crimes involving children.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/02/28/jeffrey-epstein-sex-offender-yes-billionaire-no/#669f83922136</ref>

Clinton's [[pedophile]] friend and associate, Jeffrey 'Joe' Epstein, is a donor to the [[Clinton Foundation]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html</ref> He began making donations shortly after his arrest on child sex charges. Epstein received a relatively light sentence in view of the charges against him. Epstein has settled lawsuits with 33 of his child victims. Other suits are still pending.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html#ixzz3NysnRS27</ref> Epstein is said to have provided minor girls for Prince Andrew. When the Palm Beach Florida police seized Epstein's contact book,<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-and-jeffrey-epstein-9086711</ref> 21 different phone numbers and email addresses for Clinton machine operatives were discovered, including the personal cell number for Bill Clinton, and numbers for Bill's flunky Doug Band and Hillary's flunky Cheryl Mills.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/cheryl-mills-the-woman-who-knew-too-much/</ref>

Epstein owns property in Manhattan, Palm Beach and the Virgin Islands where the child molestation acts are said to have taken place.<ref>http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/</ref> Seized flight logs in the investigation reveal Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane 18 times.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/18/morning_joe_panel_clintons_connection_to_billionaire_pedophile_jeffrey_epstein_will_blow_up_campaign.html]</ref> It has been established some of these flights were to Epstein's Virgin Islsnds retreat.<ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065</ref> A woman who victims name as procurring underage girls is s donor to the Hiilary Clinton Presidential campaign and attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010.<ref>http://snn.bz/clinton-4ss/</ref>

In 2007 former Whitewater prosecutor [[Ken Starr]], whom critics accuse of whitewashing the Vince Foster investigation,<ref>http://www.prorev.com/knowl2a.htm</ref> defended Epstein from a second conviction of having sex with a 14 year old minor.<ref>http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/791-ken-starr-explains-his-help-for-billionaire-pervert-jeffrey-epstein</ref> Starr was forced out of his position as president of Baylor University in May 2016 for mishandling another sex scandal.

==Racism==
:''See also [[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign]]'' and ''[[Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism]]''
Bill and Hillary Clinton are known for there cynical manipulation of Black voters and pandering to "white working class, hard-working white" nativist sentiment.<ref>https://youtu.be/vjoMcqMTMfw</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ijhL3-5sr18</ref> Reminiscent of her famous "bring them to heel" speech, while discussing police shootings [[Hillary Clinton]] said, "We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable" without bothering to explain what is inexplicable.

Hillary's racism runs deep. The night [[Bill Clinton]] lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974 and disappointing their immediate personel ambitions, Hillary blamed the loss on campaign manager Paul Fray. "She called me everything but a white man," Fray explained to the [[BBC]].<ref>https://youtu.be/_VonG4TyTWw</ref> Tensions escalated. Then she called him a "F***ing [[Jew]] bastard." The Cinton's of course deny it but five separate surving witnesses corroborate each other in detail.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/three-eyewitnesses-allege-hillary-called-aide-a-fking-jew-bastard/</ref><ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime">[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000.</ref> The incident was first reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''.<ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime"/><ref>http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

===The New Jim Crow===
Under the Clintons, more the 250,000 [[African American]]s were imprisoned in the [[United States]] than under President Reagan,<ref>http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=320</ref> a fact for which she takes credit for.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/</ref> Cumulatively since the Clinton's passed their crime bill, 2.5 million adult black males—more than 10% of the population—have been incarcerated leaving untold damage on black families.<ref>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/incarceration_rates_growth_causes/</ref>

Hillary's divisiveness and hate is targeted at a diverse group of people.<ref>https://youtu.be/yu9OH_KfPXA</ref> Hillary has publicly advocated treating minority youth like dogs,<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSDqbot-EI Hillary Clinton on "Superpredators"], Mrs. Clinton Campaign Speech Keene State University, January 25, 1996. youtube.com</ref> has made mocking and offensive comments about [[Jews]] and retarded children, and has called common American [[citizen]]s deplorables.<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/clinton-and-doeplorables-her-comments-about-trump-voters-her-fellow-americans-show-why-she</ref> These sentiments have been confirmed by Hillary's campaign chair, Mr. John Podesta, and her campaign manager, [[Robby Mook]]. According to all major, reputable sources, [[Hillary Clinton]] and/or her organization and its surrogates started the [[birther movement]] to discredit Obama.<ref>://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> Her declining health and criminal investigation became an issue in her 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://youtu.be/Zr1IDQ2V1eM Hillary Clinton's Illness Revealed], Dr. Ted Noel, VidZette.com, Aug. 29, 2016. youtube.com</ref>

===Jesse Jackson===
The Clintons call [[Jesse Jackson]] that "Goddamn n****r" behind his back.<ref>http://polidics.com/news/hillary-clintons-jew-bastard.html</ref><ref>http://rapmusic.com/threads/hillary-clinton-hates-blacks-and-jews-caught-by-the-secret-service-and-endorsers.1074368/</ref><ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com">https://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/the-clintons-jews-and-niggers-warning-graphic-language/</ref><ref>http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/racial-slurs-are-unsettling-if-used-by-celebrity-chefs-or-top-democrats/</ref> Jackson refused to release his delegates in 1984 to [[Gary Hart]], Clinton's old boss from the [[McGovern]] campaign of 1972. Jackson, the first African-American to win states in a major party primary, questioned the disparity between his vote total and delegate count, but even Hart sided with the DNC's rigging the primary rules.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/20/us/disparity-between-jackson-s-vote-and-delegate-count-vexes-party.html?pagewanted=all DISPARITY BETWEEN JACKSON'S VOTE AND DELEGATE COUNT VEXES PARTY], By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, ''New York Times'', May 20, 1984.</ref> In 1988 Jackson selected Ron Brown as his chief negotiator at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.<ref>https://socialistworker.org/2016/07/25/how-democrats-got-over-the-rainbow</ref> Brown went on to serve as DNC Chairman and Commerce Secretary until he died in a plane crash.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Ron-Browns-Body-Presidency-Hillarys/dp/0785262377</ref>

===Democratic Leadership Council===
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a racist organization formed by remnants of the McGovern and Hart campaigns - less the Rainbow Coalition.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html</ref><ref>https://ofamerica.wordpress.com/tag/democratic-leadership-council/</ref> By 1992 it had taken over the DNC. Democratic strategists sought to distance themselves from the civil rights movement and begin pushing the "centrist" candidacy of Bill Clinton.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan 31, 2016</ref>

That fact that 30 year old allegations of sexual asssult and improprieties are hurled at [[Bill Cosby]] with a devastating effect on his life and career while Bill Clinton is held up as a paragon of manhood and public service by the media and judicial system is a testament of the bigotry and racism of the mainstream media and their supporters. Rumors persist that the Clinton's have effectively blackmailed Barack Obama to drop thd email investigation and for his active support in the 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/</ref>

===Voting rights violations===
In Arkansas, the Clinton administration was sued several times by blacks and [[Hispanic]]s for violations of the 1965 [[Voting Rights Act]] and lost every case. 10 years into their grip on Arkansas the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled
{{Quotebox|violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas.

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the [[plurality]] system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory...

This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.<ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref><ref>http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2016/09/bill-clintons-comment-about-trumps-make.html</ref>}}

In more than one thousand legislative elections, the Arkansas delta region sent not one black to the legislature. In 1988 the federal district court forced a change to the system in Crittenden County that watered down the presence of a large number of black voters.

The case began when blacks in Crittenden County filed a voting rights lawsuit attacking the county's ''at-large'' system for electing two members to the Arkansas House. The suit contended that the system deprived black voters of a chance to elect a black to the state assembly.

The evidence at trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated. Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates, other official acts that made voting harder for blacks. A panel of 3 judges ordered Clinton, the Attorney General, and Secretary of State to redraw the boundaries to give maximum strength to black voters.

Local press reports in Arkansas from the late 1980s paint an ugly picture of the [[Clinton administration]]'s attempts to intimidate black voters.<ref>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=28880&msgid=18476315</ref> In her 1998 memoir ''Lift Every Voice'', former [[U.S Justice Department]] Civil Rights Division nominee Lani Guinier revealed that Clinton's record on [[race]] in Arkansas was so bad she was forced to take legal action. "As a staff lawyer for the [[NAACP]] Legal Defense and Education Fund [LDF], I had sued Gov. Clinton over Arkansas's deputy voter registration statute." A deputy voter registrar is someone authorized to register voters.

Guinier wrote, "In the late 1980s, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas - a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day," Dayna Cunningham, a civil rights lawyer, "were one of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious LDF voting rights suit. The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge...Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, 'We have to pay because we lost,'" the inference being the loss of the [[Civil War]] as well as the Clintons loss in the Supreme Court.

"Clinton had irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency," said Cunningham.

No good deed goes unpunished of course, so Guinier was not without her own problems for having unfortunately crossed paths with the Clintons, beginning at Yale. Three years after the ruckus in Arkansas President Clinton nominated her as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights. But the Clinton surrogates were lying in wait for her. A media smear campaign not only distorted her views, but in many cases presented them as the exact opposite. The ''New York Times'', which ordinarily presents the Clintons as the wonders of an age, ran an op-ed highly critical of Clinton's appointment, alleging Guinier was in favor of “[[segregation|segregating]] black voters in black-majority districts.” The ''Washington Post'', again no friend of conservatives, twisted Guiniers advocacy of proportional representation into a vision of “a society in which a minority can impose its will on the majority.”

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting says of the ambush and firestorm that surrounded Guinier's nomination:
{{Quotebox|there was also an ideological agenda at work: promoting Clinton’s media-celebrated shift “back to the center.” ... To make her a proper sacrificial offering, however, the establishment media had to reinvent Guinier — transforming a sophisticated advocate of racial reconciliation and participatory democracy into a sinister, [[race baiting|race-baiting]] enemy of the American Way.<ref>http://fair.org/extra/lani-guinier/</ref>}}

The Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the presidency. Guinier's nomination, if the Clintons were serious about it should have been easy. She had been Hillary snd Bill's classmate at Yale. It was classic ''Clintonism'': destroying the life of a friend and who was an advocate of racial reconciliation, painting the American people as racist, and promoting themselves. [[George Will]], it has been said, was too stupid and too lazy to actually read her writtings. As [[Mike Klonsky]] noted, when the liberal lions of the Democratically controlled Senate, such as [[Ted Kennedy]] and even [[Carole Moseley Braun]] stepped away, now the Clintons could turn a message of reconciliation into repudiation in front of the whole nation.

What's a little misunderstanding among friends? Guinier said she felt betrayed by Clinton, whom she considered a friend since their days together at Yale Law School, and was angered when he called her "anti-democratic," - the person who protected voting rights of African-Americans despite Clinton's fight against it - in a nationally televised address announcing he was scuttling her nomination.<ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?42098-1/assistant-attorney-general-nomination</ref>

===Rep. Ben McGee===
In 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Clinton wrongfully tried to overturn the election of a black state representative, Mr. Ben McGee, and replace him with a white Democrat Clinton handpicked. The case grew out of the suit against Clinton to win voting rights for the people of Crittenden County.

===Robert 'Say' MacIntosh===
Robert 'Say' MacIntosh is a civil rights activist who the ''Arkansas Democrat'' newspaper named Arkansan of the Year in the late 1970s for his charitable work with children in Little Rock's housing projects.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080926012344/http://www.cals.lib.ar.us/butlercenter/manuscripts/collection/mss97-43.html]</ref> MacIntosh unsuccessfully ran for public office under Arkansas's racial gerrymanderring and minority voter suppression laws of the Clinton era, including as Lieutant Governor in 1980. He considered challenging Bill Clinton in the 1986 Democratic gubernatorial primary, but backed out when another African-American candidate, former anti-poverty agency head W. Dean Goldsby, filed on the last day.

A tree was ceremoniously planted on the Arkansas capitol grounds in the Clinton years on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to honor Dr. King. McIntosh showed up the next day and chopped it down in front of the press, and commented, "No black man was invited to be present for the tree planting. I'm cutting it down till blacks are invited to be part of the political process in Little Rock." Wikipedia says "few debate that he has been a major part of local color in Arkansas."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_"Say"_McIntosh</ref>

MacIntosh publicized allegations Bill Clinton fathered an out of wedlock child named Danney Williams.<ref>https://twitter.com/danney_williams?s=09</ref> When Bill Clinton was in Little Rock, McIntosh would distribute leaflets within a five block area to raise money for the child's upbringing. He had frequent face-to-face confrontations with Gov. Clinton over child support. Clinton privately referred to MacIntosh with aides using the "n" word.<ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com"/>

The story resurfaced during the 2008 primaries, only this time the denials weren't so strong and adopted a more forgiving attitude.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/sex-lies-and-major-headlines</ref><ref>http://epubbookonline.com/b/3035/roger-stone/the-clintons-war-on-women/27</ref> Many blacks and Obama supporters were put off by the mainstresm media spin and questioned the untimely death of Ron Brown.<ref>http://wc.blackplanet.com/news/article_comments.html?news_item_id=46467</ref><ref>http://aapoliticalpundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/blacks-clintons-presidency-and-ron.html</ref> Even the ''Washington Post'' noticed the racial undercurrent in Hillary Clinton's campaign.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201762.html</ref>

===Ron Brown===
The death of Ron Brown remains a contoversial subject among African-Americans.<ref>https://youtu.be/BMXnPYGDgVc</ref> Ron Brown was the first black [[Secretary of Commerce]] who died in the crash of Air Force Two. The crash occurred one week before Brown was slated to give testimony in the Clinton campaign finance scandal, among other scandals.<ref>https://youtu.be/HR-WkSEzaho</ref>

===Confederate Flag Day===
The Arkansas Legislature's Act 116 of 1987 designated the star above the word "Arkansas" on the state flag as a commemoration of the Confederacy, signed into law by Gov. Clinton, as well as annual proclamations for Confederate Flag Day.

In April 1985 Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. and [[Robert E. Lee]], General of the Confederate army, state holidays on the same day. The coded message sent to white constituents could not have be clearer.

===Black lives don't matter===
On the eve of the [[New Hampshire]] primary in 1992, Bill Clinton took off from the campaign trail to sign the death warrant and oversee the execution of a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector. Recktor, who had been lobotomized, was mentally incompetent and unable to understand the charges against him.
<ref>[https://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-hitchens/ Christopher Hitchens], Skeptical Brotha. Retrieved 23 June 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.blackstarnews.com/us-politics/elections/bill-clinton-hopped-up-on-whack-ricky-ray-rector-part-2.html Bill Clinton "Hopped Up On Whack" -- Ricky Ray Rector Part 2], Colin Benjamin, Black Star News, April 13, 2016</ref> "It was like executing a child," the prison chaplain said. Hillary, the master strategist of the Clinton's rise, fearing the Willie Horton syndrome which torpedoed [[Michael Dukakis]] in 1988 and the 'monkey business' which destroyed [[Gary Hart]] as well, still defended the execution in 2016.<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clintons-indefensible-stance-on-the-death-penalty/ Hillary Clinton’s Indefensible Stance on the Death Penalty], Liliana Segura, ''The Intercept'', Mar. 17 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ Jan 31, 2016 04:00 AM MDT The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan. 31, 2016</ref>

Hillary was at his side when Bill Clinton raised mandatory sentencing guidelines which disproportionately sent Blacks to prison, giving the United States the highest mass incarceration rate in the world.<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter], By Donna Murch, ''The New Republic'', February 9, 2016</ref> The Clinton's championed the “three strikes you're out” law, passed a crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for more state prisons. By the time the Clinton's left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote], Michelle Alexander, ''The Nation'', February 10, 2016</ref>

In late 2015, while several American cities smoldered in riots over police shootings, Hillary Clinton had several prison industry lobbyists working as fundraisers on her campaign. The fundraiser-lobbyists worked for the Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, which also run most of the [[immigrant]] detention centers.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/while-missouri-students-battle-racism-prison-lobbyists-funded-hillary-clintons-campaign_b_8553370.html While Missouri Students Battle Racism, Prison Lobbyists Funded Hillary Clinton’s Campaign], H.A. Goodman, ''Huffington Post'', Nov 13, 2015</ref>

===Racial profiling Hispanics===
The Clintons instituted [[racial profiling]] of [[Latino]]s as drug dealers in 1988. Specifically, the troopers were authorized to stop and search cars driven by Hispanics, especially those with Texas license plates. Again, the Clinton's Criminal Apprehension Program was challenged in federal court and ruled unconstitutional. But the program went on anyway with further destruction of civil liberties when the Clinton's authorized state troopers to stop and search any car regardless of race.<ref>https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56765970.html</ref>

Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, cited the fact that Clinton was "a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics," and thst they do not have "the moral authority to lead a national campaign on this issue." The Clintons need to "apologize to all those Hispanics who suffered this 'morally indefensible' practice".

===Naked racism===
A Black Lives Matter activist confront Hillary Clinton in 2016 about the Clinton's history of [[racism]].<ref>[http://fair.org/home/why-did-it-take-an-activist-to-bring-superpredators-into-the-campaign/ Why Did It Take an Activist to Bring ‘Superpredators’ Into the Campaign?], By Jim Naureckas, FAIR, 27 Feb 2016</ref> In January 2016 ''[[Salon]]'' published an article on the dirty little secret among the liberal intelligentsia no one wants to talk about: the Clinton's rise and success has been based on stoking racial fears. Stan Greenberg conducted the focus groups that dictated the Clinton's daily buzzwords and talking points to provide the fodder and fuel the Clinton's lived and died on. Greenberg's work produced results claiming the Democratic party was too identified with [[Jesse Jackson]] and minorities to speak for 'average Americans' and it needed to appeal to white working class swing voters.<ref>[http://prospect.org/article/crisis-working-majority-0 From Crisis to Working Majority], Stan Greenberg, ''The American Prospect'' 2, no. 7 (September 1991). Republished 24 May 2005</ref>

Perhaps nothing reveals the cold, cruel, calculated and hateful divisiveness in the heart of the woman than her comment to Sam Donaldson on ABC's ''Prime Time Live'' that Gennifer Flowers was the daughter of Willie Horton. Intended as a throwaway line, with all the facts in now - that it was a lie and she knew it was a lie - we see the cynical manipulation of people, particularly those in the civil rights and women's movements, and her incipient predations.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1j6Xy5FnBzkC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=gennifer+flowers+is+the+daughter+of+willie+horton&source=bl&ots=LIylbGcmHA&sig=35GnRjdcZx32qV_stExpcJV0PFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPgdST5s3NAhUIKGMKHfDfCOgQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=gennifer%20flowers%20is%20the%20daughter%20of%20willie%20horton&f=false The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse], Colleen E. Kelley, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, pp. 268-269</ref>

In 1992 for the first time in nearly half a century the party platform made no mention of redressing racial injustice. Through triangulation and a policy of 'get tuff on crime', the Clinton's sought to repudiate and distance themselves from the Democratic party's commitment to the struggles of [[African-American]]s. The Clinton's formulated a crime bill purportedly to 'put 100,000 new cops on the street'. Hillary became one of the chief spokespersons referring to black teens as dogs.
{{Cquote|They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-slams-clintons-racist-1996-super-predators-comment/ Bernie Sanders slams Clinton's "racist" 1996 super predators comment], By Reena Flores, CBS News, April 14, 2016</ref><ref>[http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/ Superscapegoating], Teen 'superpredators' hype set stage for draconian legislation, By Robin Templeton, FAIR, 1 Jan 1998</ref>}}
In the 2008 presidential primaries, the Clinton's were back at it: fostering racial fear and paranoia,<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008</ref> which by now seemed to be the regular program of the Democratic Leadership Council.<ref>[http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html Muzzling The African-American Agenda With Black Help], Bruce A. Dixon, ''The Black Commentator''. www.blackcommentator.com</ref> They tried to marginalize Obama as the black candidate with comparisons to Jesse Jackson<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-jus_n_83406.html Bill Clinton: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson], ''Huffington Post'', 03/28/2008</ref> emphasizing Hillary's 'wide appeal': "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", Hillary told ''USA Today''.<ref>[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm Clinton makes case for wide appeal], By Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY, 5/8/2008</ref> She mocked and ridiculed Obama's fitness to lead on his no first strike nuclear pledge saying, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," whereas two months earlier she promised to nuke Iran. She stayed in the race even after it became apparent she lost, according to her, only because Obama might be assassinated.

As heir to the [[New Deal]] tradition and key to the New England donor base, Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s blessing on the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was vital. The Clinton's also were seeking bona fides among liberals and the [[civil rights]] movement. Clinton said of Obama, "that boy would have been carrying our bags and getting us coffee a few years ago".<ref>[http://urbanintellectuals.com/2015/07/17/did-you-know-bill-clinton-made-racist-comments-about-barack-obama-when-he-first-ran-for-president/ Did You Know Bill Clinton Made Racist Comments About Barack Obama When He First Ran For President], F. Taylor, Urban Intellectuals, July 17, 2015.</ref> Kennedy was offended by Clinton's racism and refused to give Hillary the endorsement.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/28/hillaryclinton.usa Hillary has cynically turned to the one argument she has left: race], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008.</ref>

===Haitian abductions===
:''See: [[Pizzagate]]''
In 2010, Bill Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, worked for the release of 10 adults who had been arrested transporting 33 [[Haiti]]an children abducted from their families across the border to the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>https://youtu.be/vzVAcn1YkcY</ref>

===African sex slaves===
Again, this advocate of women and children's rights was asked repeatedly in 2011 to designate [[Boko Haram]] as a terrorist organization after the group bombed the [[United Nations]] headquarters in Abuja. Secretary Clinton's State Department refused, despite requests coming from the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, the [[CIA]], and numerous Senators and Congressmen.<ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-dropped-ball-boko-haram-020300046--politics.html?ref=gs Hillary Dropped the Ball on Boko Haram], Josh Rogin, [The Daily Beast], May 7, 2014. www.yahoo.com</ref> In May 2012, Justice Department official Lisa Monaco wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al Qaeda in the Maghreb (al Qaeda in North Africa) and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?] Hot Air website.</ref>

The American counterterrorism agencies were asking for the legal authority to begin countering Boko Haram. Boko Haram is now an Islamic State province but at the time it held allegiance to al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at the behest of French and British [[corporate]] interests was in negotiation with several al Qaeda affiliates - [[al Qaeda in the Maghreb]], the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]], and Ansar al Shariah - to destabilize Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at the time and didn't want to antagonize or alienate her allies.

In early 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 teenage schoolgirls, most of whom were Black, and announced its intention to sell them as [[marital]] [[sex]] [[slave]]s.<ref>http://www.theledger.com/opinion/20160927/letter-for-hillary-money-matters-more</ref>

===Birth of the birther movement===
:''See [[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]''
Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign team began spreading [[Islamophobic]] rumors that Obama was a Muslim schooled in a ''madrassa'' as a child in Indonesia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/bill-clinton-barack-obama-bromance-long-slow-making Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: an alliance long and slow in the making], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080506093354/http://www.stop-obama.org/?page_id=23 Who is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?] Mission Statement, stop-obama.org</ref> Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, working through his son, Max Blumenthal, was the origin of the rumors that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim in order to stir up fear among the electorate which was intended to discredit Obama and work to Hillary's benefit.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/ The Great Islamophobic Crusade], CBSNEWS, December 19, 2010. cbsnews.com</ref>

It began with People United Means Action (PUMA), a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who not only opposed Barack Obama's nomination, but then went on to oppose his Presidency.<ref>https://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> PUMA members pointed to charges that the media directed sexism and misogyny at Clinton during the primary campaign and expressed anger at Democratic Party leaders' failure to speak out against that or otherwise respond appropriately.

===Political Correctness summit gaffe===
During a political correctness summit, where she acted as a keynote speaker, she let her views on blacks out publicly where she stated that "all [blacks] look alike [to her]."<ref>https://www.teaparty.org/hillary-clinton-says-blacks-look-alike-political-correctness-summit-330890/</ref>

== U.S. Senate ==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Senate career]]''
===FALN===
In preparation for her Senate bid, Bill Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group <ref>Multiple references:
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080501015940/http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf "Coddling terrorists?"] (September 21, 1999). Senate Republican Policy Committee. Retrieved from May 1, 2008 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (September 15, 1999). [http://web.archive.org/web/20000416225221/https://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm "Witness list (and transcribed statements): Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 'Clemency for FALN Members'"]. U.S. Senate website/Committee on the Judiciary. Retrieved from April 16, 2000 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate, 106th Congress (September 14, 1999). [http://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/33 "S.J. Res. 106-33: A joint resolution deploring the actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency to FALN terrorists."] U.S. Congress website/Legislation/106th Congress/Senate joint resolutions. Passed 95-2.</ref> to curry favor with [[radical]] [[Puerto Rican]] voters among the New York electorate.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm "FALN clemency and NY Senate race"] (1999-2009). Justice for Jonathan Pollard website.</ref> The FALN bombed the historic Fraunces Tavern in [[Manhattan]], killing four people in 1975. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm "Clinton pardons terror"] (August 13, 1999). ''New York Post''. Reprinted at Latin American Studies website.</ref>

===Illegal fundraising, 2000===
In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions.<ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html "Press release, Matter under review 5225"] (January 26, 2006). Federal Election Commission website.</ref>
===Illegal fundraising, 2007===
Norman Hsu was a 'HillRaiser', someone who brought in more than $860,000 for her 2008 presidential campaign, and co-hosted a $1 million fundraiser in Beverly Hills. Hsu had been convicted of defrauding investors of over $1 million in 1992 and had a fugitive warrant out for over 15 years at the time. Hillary had been warned about the source of the contributions earlier, but only returned the money after the scandal became public.

==Secretary of State==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Secretary of State]]
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject commercial arms sales to foreign governments based upon a broad range of reasons, from [[national security]] considerations to [[human rights]] concerns. This often brought her into a [[legal]] and [[ethical]] [[conflict of interest]] with donors to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]] has also criticized the foreign corporations that donate cash to the Clinton Foundation, citing "a French company", the Veolia Group, "that sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.” Veolia contributed between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Warren criticized Philip Morris, part of the Altria group, another Clinton Foundation donor. And “a Swedish company", Vattenfall, a state-owned Swedish utility; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency has contributed between $1 million and $10 million.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-targets-clinton-foundation-donors/ Elizabeth Warren Targets Clinton Foundation Donors], Brent Scher, May 8, 2015. freebeacon.com</ref>

She was a staunch advocate of American boots on the ground in [[Syria]] and [[Libya]].<ref>https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-war-risk-of-hillary-clinton/</ref> She has promised, if elected President, greater intervention,<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/time-delay-over-hillary-clinton-outlines-plan-combat-isis-n466346</ref> and the use of nuclear weapons against [[Iran]] if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack against [[Israel]].<ref>https://youtu.be/857guwaNbRc</ref>

Clinton later admitted to having emailed over 100 government officials, including President Obama, through her personal email account.<ref>Klein, Aaron (September 13, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/hillary-clinton-admits-emailed-100-government-employees-private-server/ Hillary Clinton Admits She Emailed Over 100 Government Employees from Private Server]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

===The Hillary Clinton Doctrine of smart power===
:''High tech surveillance, blackmail, and violations of international law.''
After being rejected for the top leadership of her party in 2008, the 62-year-old Clinton tenaciously held onto a quest for power, releasing her convention delegates and being granted the position of Secretary of State. Neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or George W. Bush were particularly qualified in the area of foreign affairs, but in the Democratic party a resume that includes reforming Arkansas public schools, receiving an appointment based on [[nepotism]] to squander tens of millions of dollars for a federal healthcare study program that never took shape, or serving as a non-distinct Senator with no tangible accomplishments qualifies a person to hold a high level position in a time of international crisis that neither they, nor their boss, understand anything about.

'Don't do stupid stuff' was President Obama's instructions to Hillary, the mantra being that George W. Bush was 'stupid', and therefore anything that departed from the policies of G.W. Bush was 'smart'. From this evolved Hillary's doctrine of 'smart power', overthrowing regimes with weapons supplied by donors to the Clinton Foundation without putting U.S. boots on the ground and unleashing millions of refugees worldwide.

All this 'smart power' needed a formal name; in recent decades several President's had 'doctrines' named after themselves - the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine; Bill Clinton was cheated, he never had any interest in foreign policy and little impact, so now it was time for a 'Clinton Doctrine', that is, the 'Hillary Clinton Doctrine' formulated by a Secretary of State that she could ride into the White House with. Thus began the quest to overthrow a U.S. ally as a favor to foreign donors to the Clintons. President Obama woke up too late to see how he had been used and manipulated to bring about a massive humanitarian crisis, and the damage Hillary Clinton's machinations have done to his presidency and legacy.

All in all, the team of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been a disaster for the world. Teaming up support for the 2016 Presidential election as loyal Democrats is a farce; they already are blaming each other for the hundreds of thousands dead, and the 2,000,000 refugees who have flooded across Europe just since 2014. And they most assuredly will continue to blame each other in their memoirs. A [[skeptic]] may say it doesn't matter, Middle Easterners don't vote in U.S. elections; but a skeptic might also have no problem voting for a leader with no [[conscience]]. The world is now in the midst of a serious displaced persons refugee crisis, the most serious since the end of [[World War II]] in 1945.

====Catastrophic aftermath====
[[File:Mass beheading of Christians in Libya.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary's War culminated in the creation of the [[Islamic State]] and mass beheading of [[Christian]]s.]]
Nuclear armed dictators such as [[Kim Jong-un]] witnessed how Gaddafi had been lied to and double-crossed by Secretary Clinton and her consortium.<ref>theatlantic.com"</ref> Decades of negotiation were lost with him, his father, and his grandfather, to persuade [[North Korea]] to give up its WMD, nukes and [[ballistic missile]] programs, return to the community of 'civilized nations', and to live in peace and harmony by accepting the word of the United States chief negotiator, the Secretary of State. When North Korea illegally tested an above-ground nuclear device in January 2016 it specifically cited the fate of Gaddafi as to why it needs a nuclear deterrent.<ref>telegraph.co.uk"</ref>

The brave new world Hillary built in Libya soon descended into chaos. The irascible [[jihad]]i elements Hillary and Obama supported turned their U.S. supplied weapons on American territory, the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary's 'moderate rebels' -- [[al-Qaeda in the Maghreb]] and the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]]<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/benghazi-raid-libyan-revolution Benghazi raid leaves cradle of Libyan revolution fearing for its future] ''[[The Guardian]]'' September 21, 2012. "There was no demonstration. They came with machine guns, with rockets."</ref>—killed the American Ambassador reportedly in the same fashion Gaddafi had been murdered.<ref>[http://www.aina.org/news/20120913165253.htm Ambassador Stevens Was Raped Before His Murder, Reports Claim], 2012-09-13. www.aina.org</ref> All this was occurring on American soil only 56 days prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential election]] where the slogan was "[[Osama Bin Laden#Abbottabad raid|Bin Laden is dead]], [[Crony capitalism|GM is alive]], and al Qaeda is on the run." The deceptive narrative denying America had been attacked was issued by Hillary Clinton at nearly the precise time Ambassador [[Christopher Stevens]] was viciously murdered.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE Here's the KEY MOMENT in Benghazi hearings - Rep. Jordan nails Hillary on LIES], posted by [[Pamela Geller]], Oct 22, 2015. youtube.com</ref>

The Libyan fiasco stiffened the resolve of [[Vladimir Putin]]. Putin did not veto the U.N. Security Council which passed a 'fig leaf' resolution to give its proponents, Hillary Clinton, [[Nicolas Sarkozy#Libyan affair|Nicolas Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron]] and Barack Obama an air of legitimacy.<ref>[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/forgotten-war-understanding-incredible-debacle-left-behind-nato-libya.html Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya], Posted on February 28, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog.</ref><ref>[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/ Hillary Clinton: the Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III], by Maidhc Ó Cathail – Diana Johnstone, March 10, 2016. www.counterpunch.org</ref> Amidst the ensuing chaos they began blaming each other. Once the duplicity and betrayal of the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton became obvious, Putin moved to shore up defense of his own allies - Russians residing in the [[Ukraine]] and [[Crimea]], and [[Syria]]n President [[Bashar al-Assad]].<ref>[http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603 Address by President of the Russian Federation], March 18, 2014. en.kremlin.ru</ref> Putin felt betrayed, the U.N. Security Council resolution was only to provide a no-fly zone aircover for the rebels, not an authorization for direct attacks and intervention against Gaddafi's forces as Putin had been assured beforehand.

===Iranian nuke deal===
The ''EU Times'' reported on 30 December 2012 Hillary Clinton had been injured in the crash landing of a C-12 Huron military aircraft 3 weeks prior in the city of Ahvaz,<ref>http://www.eutimes.net/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in-secret-us-mission-to-iran/</ref> Iran while on a secret mission in preparation of the Iranian nuclear deal and lifting sanctions.<ref>http://www.americannewsservice.org/search/label/Commander%20Job%20W.%20Price</ref> The report was ciculated among Hillary's staffers who joking referred to it as a conspiracy theory until Les Horn responded to Anthony Milavic on 3 January 2013,
{{Quotebox|Anthony -- FYI. The report appears to be credible. Les<ref>https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/9457</ref>}}
Reports say upon landing the plane encountered "extreme turbulence" causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed. Within seconds Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and "bleeding profusely."

The ''EU Times'' noted, "US media reports state that Secretary Clinton will return to work next week after her having suffered what they describe as a "nasty bout with stomach flu" and a "concussion" which have kept her missing from public view the past three weeks. The ''Debkafile'' confirmed these reports.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20130101003102/http://debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran</ref>

===Boko Haram===
[[File:Nigerian girls.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary Clinton did nothing to protect the lives and safety of 276 Christian girls kidnapped by [[Boko Haram]] and sold as sex slaves, despite multiple agency requests. The Obama administration furnished the same organization SAM-7 missiles capable of shooting down commercial and military aircraft.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/libyan-missiles-on-the-loose/2012/05/08/gIQA1FCUBU_story.html?utm_term=.a091217ed1fd Libyan missiles on the loose], By [[David Ignatius]], Washington Post Opinion writer, May 8, 2012</ref>]]
Hillary Clinton refused to place [[Boko Haram]] on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ "Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?"] Hot Air website.</ref> Placing Boko Haram on the State Department's terrorist list would then give legal authority to the CIA or FBI to act. At the time, Hillary was deeply involved in negotiations with and efforts to arm various Al Qaeda entities to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad.

Boko Haram, a terrorist group numbering 15,000 in three countries of West Africa, has murdered at least 20,000 people and displaced another 2.6 million. Boko Haram in 2011 was affiliated with [[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]; by 2017 it had the Islamic States' largest number of members.

In 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 Black African Christian girls and has sold them into slavery, reports indicate.

===Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation===
Once Saddam Hussein fell in April 2003, the [[Bush administration]] hastily closed Prince Sultan Airbase ending a long term commitment to the defense of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/prince-sultan.htm Prince Sultan Air Base, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia]. globalsecurity.org</ref>

By the end of the decade the Clinton Foundation received millions from an organization known as the Friends of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/clinton.donations Clinton's foundation got millions from Saudis, Gates], CNN, December 18, 2008. Univision TV owner also gave millions.</ref> With the theft of government records, and the admission Hillary scrubbed the server, the exact extent of a conflict of interest and other violations of law at present is unclear.<ref>[http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/30/gowdy-hillary-clinton-wiped-her-server-between-october-and-december-2014 Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Wiped Server Between October & December 2014], On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, ''[[FOX News]]'', 30 March 2015.</ref>
<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html How Hillary Clinton's email scandal took root], Robert O'Harrow Jr., ''Washington Post'', 27 March 2016.</ref>

====Rape victims====
As Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from the Kingdom of [[Saudi Arabia]], where rape victims are regularly flogged.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=1 Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record as Women’s Advocate], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', MARCH 8, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.mrctv.org/blog/rand-paul-stone-age-barbaric-saudi-arabia-buying-influence-donating-hillary-clinton Rand Paul: 'Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Have Taken That Money' from Saudi Arabia], Barbara Boland | March 25, 2015. www.mrctv.org</ref><ref>[https://www.gop.com/clinton-foundation-takes-from-countries-that-mistreat-women/ Clinton Foundation Takes $$ From Countries That Mistreat Women], October 11, 2015. www.gop.com</ref><ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/clintons-outrage-at-saudi-rape-sentence/2007/11/22/1195321896405.html Clinton's 'outrage' at Saudi rape sentence], ''Sydney Morning Herald'', November 22, 2007.</ref><ref>Conservative group claims Hillary Clinton's foundation took millions from foreign governments, [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ Politifact: Statement:'''TRUE'''], By Steve Contorno, February 26th, 2015. politifact.com</ref> In 2015, a 19-year-old woman who was the victim of a violent gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of being “indecent” at the time of the attack. Saudi law dictates a woman must have a male escort in public. She originally was sentenced to 90 lashes; on appeal the sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of indecency and exposing the case in the media.

====Gay rights====
While [[homosexuality]] is punishable by [[death]] under certain circumstances, this particular active Clinton donor at the present time is seeking to increase the frequency at which [[execution]]s of [[gay]]s is carried out. The Saudi judicial system blames [[Social media]] for causing an increase in 'deliberate' acts of homosexuality. As of the first half of 2016, there were 35 people on death row in Saudi Arabia for sodomy.<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/saudi-arabia-pushes-homosexuals-executed-7672283 Saudi Arabia 'pushes for homosexuals to be executed' amid fears social media is 'turning people gay'], By Rhian Lubin, ''Mirror'', 1 April 2016. www.mirror.co.uk</ref>

====Arms sales====
As Sec. Clinton approved weapons transfers, both Saudi Arabia [[Boeing]] aircraft made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The ''[[Washington Post]]'' revealed that a Boeing [[lobbyist]] was also working as a fundraiser in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship], By Rosalind S. Helderman, ''Washington Post'', April 13, 2014.</ref>

'''Boeing F15 fighters''' 
Early in her tenure the $29.4 Billion sale and upgrades of Boeing F15 fighter aircraft was a 'top priority'. The Saudi air campaign in [[Yemen]] has been led by American-made F-15 fighter jets. According to the United Nations at least 2,800 civilians have been killed in airstrikes so far.<ref>[https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52938#.V2iKGKLT9aU Yemen: civilian casualties top 8,100 as airstrikes and shelling continue, UN reports], 5 January 2016. un.org</ref> Three facilities supported by Doctors Without Borders have been bombed.

'''Cluster bombs''' 
The U.N. Secretary General has decried “intense airstrikes in residential areas and on civilian buildings in Sanaa, including the chamber of commerce, a wedding hall, and a center for the blind,” and has warned that reports of cluster bombs being used in populated areas “may amount to a [[war crime]] due to their indiscriminate nature.”<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”], Lee Fang, ''The Intercept'', Feb. 22 2016</ref><ref>[[Human Rights Watch]] released a report providing new indications that Saudi Arabia has fired American-made cluster munitions, banned by international treaty, in civilian areas of Yemen. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/world/middleeast/new-report-of-us-made-cluster-bomb-use-by-saudis-in-yemen.html?_r=0 New Report of U.S.-Made Cluster Bomb Use by Saudis in Yemen], By RICK GLADSTONEFEB, ''New York Times'', February 14, 2016</ref>

===European migrant crisis===
[[File:IMG 20170511 212807.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The European refugee crisis, the result of what the Washington Post calls ''Hillary's War's''<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html</ref> - has permanently transformed European society.]]
:''Main article:'' [[European migrant crisis]]
The [[Libyan uprising|Libyan Civil War]] and [[Syrian War]], the legacies of President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed "[[Arab Spring]]" [[foreign policy]]<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/middle-east-egypt-us-policy/409537/ Islamism, the Arab Spring, and the Failure of America’s Do-Nothing Policy in the Middle East], SHADI HAMID, ''The Atlantic'', OCT 9, 2015</ref> — which according to their own public pronouncements was supposed to overthrow corrupt [[secular]] dictators and establish [[democracies]] by arming and assisting anti-democratic [[Islamist]]s<ref>[https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110523-obama-and-arab-kspring Obama and the Arab Spring], George Friedman, ''Stratfor'', MAY 24, 2011</ref> — resulted in attacks on gays and women, mass beheadings, wholesale slaughter,<ref>[http://www.jihadwatcheurope.org/daesh-slaughters-200-syrian-children-in-a-savage-mass-execution/ Daesh mass execution of 200 Syrian children, 2014]</ref> and a tsunami in excess of 6 million homeless migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and jihadis invading Europe.<ref>[http://www.unrefugees.org/2015/06/a-world-at-war/ Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2015], UNHCR, June 18, 2015</ref>

One major factor in [[Brexit]] is the [[European refugee crisis]], causing [[Britain]] to tighten its borders. Over 2 million Muslims settled in Germany - 4 times larger than Germany's standing military, in 2015 as a result of Hillary's call for "Assad must go." Nearly one million natural born citizens of their homeland left Germany at the same time.<ref>https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/over-2-million-muslims-migrated-to-germany-in-2015/</ref>

==2016 Presidential election campaign==
[[File:Hillary on the campaign trail.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Black faces were conspicuously absent from Clinton rallies; among other shocking revelations, the Pedosta emails flatly stated the Clinton machine "conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry."<ref>https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/13/podesta-pal-we-conspire-to-produce-an-unaware-and-compliant-citizenry/</ref>]]
:''Main article: [[2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign]]''
{{See also|Presidential Election 2016|Clinton donors in the Panama Papers|Hillary Clinton email scandal|Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism}}, ''[[United States presidential election, 2016#Clinton attacks on women|Clinton attacks on women]]''
Clinton has held several public offices, and also ran for president in 2008 and 2016. In 2008 she lost to [[Barack Obama]], but she won the democratic nomination in a controversial and contested primary fight over [[populist]] [[Bernie Sanders]] during the [[2016 Presidential Election]]. Although Clinton won the popular vote 65,853,516 (46.1%) to 62,984,825 (48.2%), Trump won the [[electoral college]] vote, 306 to 232, with the incomplete vote count reported.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/election/results|title=Election Results|accessdate=Nov. 12, 2016}}</ref>
===Rigged nomination===
The Democrat Iowa Caucus was very chaotic, poorly run, and whose results were very questionable.<ref>Samuelson, Darren (February 8, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/how-iowa-democrats-couldnt-handle-a-two-candidate-race-218934 Inside the Iowa caucus chaos]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Tuttle, Ian (February 5, 2016). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430878/hillary-clintons-iowa-victory-transparent-irregularities Iowa’s Transparently Dishonest Democratic Caucus]. ''National Review''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Jacobs, Jennifer (February 3, 2016). [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowas-nightmare-revisited-correct-winner-called-caucus-night/79702010/ Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?] ''The Des Moines Register''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> It was reported that the results of 90 precincts, about 5 percent of the vote, went missing.<ref>[http://conservativetribune.com/iowa-caucus-democrat-party/ Iowa Democrat Party Issues Stunning Announcement About Caucus Results]. ''Conservative Tribune''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

The Democrat primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the party was shown to be helping Clinton behind the scenes.<ref>Griffin, Andrew (November 9, 2016). [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-us-election-president-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html Donald Trump won election because Democrats rigged system to have Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, says WikiLeaks]. ''The Independent''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Hoft, Jim (October 18, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/obama-lectures-media-integrity-elections-forgets-democrats-just-rigged-primary-bernie/ Obama Lectures Trump on "Rigged" Elections — Forgets That Democrats Just Rigged Primary Against Bernie]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> In addition, the Democrat primary has "superdelegates", who are made up of party leaders and can vote for whomever they want regardless of what the primary voters want.<ref>Resnikoff, Ned (May 16, 2016). [http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/why-will-superdelegates-decide-2016-democratic-primary-unearthed-documents-hold Why Will Superdelegates Decide The 2016 Democratic Primary? Unearthed Documents Hold The Key]. ''International Business Times''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Even the leftist website [[Salon Media Group]] believed the primary was rigged.<ref>Demoro, Roseann (March 30, 2016). [http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/ 10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start]. ''Salon''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

Donna Brazile, the interim DNC Chair, shared Democrat primary town hall questions to the Clinton campaign in order to help her win the primary.<ref>Shaw, Adam (March 17, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/brazile-admits-forwarded-debate-questions-to-clinton-camp.html Brazile admits she forwarded town hall questions to Clinton camp]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref><ref>Ernst, Douglas (March 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile-admits-leaking-debate-questions-to-c/ Donna Brazile admits leaking debate questions to Clinton camp: ‘A mistake I will forever regret’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> She continued to deny this fact through February 2017<ref>Scarry, Eddie (March 17, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donna-brazile-finally-admits-she-shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign/article/2617742 Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> and blamed [[Russia]] for the ordeal.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (March 18, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/18/donna-brazile-admits-to-sharing-debate-questions-with-clinton-camp-blames-russia/ Donna Brazile Admits to Sharing Debate Questions With Clinton Camp, Blames Russia]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref>

===Wikileaks===
:''Main articles:'' '''[[Murder of Seth Rich]]''' ''and'' '''[[Clinton body count]]'''
Clinton talking points emphasized the idea that US intelligence, the same people who brought you the [[WMD]] debacle, claim Russia and Putin are responsible for the hack of [[DNC]] servers which resulted in the firing of Democratic National Committee Chair [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]. This presumably would exonerate anyone connected with the DNC or Clinton campaign from complity in the Murder of Seth Rich.
[[File:Sethrich-e1494948876256.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Seth Rich (1989-2016) was a Sanders' supporter who leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks. His bullet ridden body was found on a dark Washington DC street two weeks before Hillary's nominating convention.]]
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails provided by [[Wikileaks]] showed clear [[collusion]] between Clinton, [[mainstream media]] outlets, and the DNC to smear [[Bernie Sanders]]. Thousands of hopeful millennials felt betrayed by the Democratic party. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out on the eve of the convention, less than 24 hours after dozens of emails were published by Wikileaks showing her and her staff rigging the primary elections for Hillary Clinton.

Wikileaks founder [[Julian Assange]] has offered $20,000 cash reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killers or killer, the alleged [[Whistleblower Statutes|whistleblower]] who provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks and was murdered execution style in early July 2016. Hillary says of Assange in an email, "Can't we just drone this guy?"<ref>http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/</ref> To silence Assange, Wikileaks internet access was cut by the government of Ecuador after the release of Hillary's private paid speech to [[Goldman Sachs]]. Wikileaks Director, Prof. Gavin Macfayden, was found dead the following week. Macfayden's death was the third of a close associate of Assange in 6 months.<ref>https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790004642038050816/photo/1</ref>

===Donna Brazile===
After a live televised Commander-in-Chief discussion with [[NBC]]'s [[Matt Lauer]] where the questions were said to be agreed upon before hand, Lauer proceed to use the bulk of the time to press Hillary on questions of her controversial email server.<ref>https://youtu.be/kfGeXth-Do4</ref> When the broadcast was over, Hillary was reported to have f!own into a rage demanding Lauer to be fired. Addressing interim DNC Chair [[Donna Brazile]], Hillary proclaimed,
{{cquote|You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting ******* Lauer get away with this betrayal? Get the **** to work janitoring this mess- do I make myself clear?}}<ref>http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/</ref>

===Divisive and dismissive comments===
Hillary branded half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and called them "irredeemable". Her spokeswoman called Roman Catholics "severely backwards" and charging that they don’t know "what the hell they’re talking about."<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (October 12, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/catholic-group-calls-clinton-spokeswomans-resignat/ Catholic group calls for Clinton spokeswoman’s resignation after anti-Catholic comments in emails]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref>

===Health matters===
In late 2012 Hillary was reported to have suffered a concussion. Initial reports suggested it occurred after a "fainting" spell; other reports stated she suffered the concussion on board a C-12 Huron military aircraft which skidded off the runaway while in Iran to jumpstart negotiations on sanctions and the nuke deal.<ref>https://youtu.be/xTMw_w4IhBw</ref> The crash occurred on or about 8 December 2012; Hillary had a public "fainting" spell on 15 December 2012<ref>https://youtu.be/2f-_vtw0jWg</ref> which then led to reports she suffered a concussion. Reports say she was not hospitalized at that time. In a 24 December email she refers to having a "cracked head."<ref>https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/wikileaks-hillarys-crackhead-and-dementia-bombshell-hillary-clinton-used-drugs-for-dementia-and-parkinsons-disease-asked-nfl-chief-to-help-her-deal-with/</ref>

===Illegal fundraising 2016===
Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient.

State parties however can make unlimited transfers to the national party.

In 2014 the [[Supreme Court]] made clear in ''McCutcheon v. FEC'', the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions.

Six-figure donations to the Clinton machine either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting violations by he Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), state parties, and the DNC to other violations.

Donna Brazile and others admitted that the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.<ref>https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-anatomy-of-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/ </ref>

===Results===
It was widely expected that Clinton would win the election, and the elite pollsters and "political insiders" all predicted a massive Clinton victory.<ref>Vogel, Kenneth P. & Isenstadt, Alex (November 9, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036 How did everyone get it so wrong?]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Catanese, David (October 24, 2016). [http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-10-24/republicans-last-hope-the-polls-are-wrong Republicans’ Last Hope: The Polls Are Wrong]. ''U.S. News & World Report''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> At least once, when a poll was released that actually showed Trump leading, Clinton's campaign dismissed it as "bad polling".<ref>Nelson, Louis (November 1, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591 Clinton camp on new survey showing Trump ahead: It’s ‘bad polling’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> Instead, Trump won the election in a massive, historical upset, winning even states such as [[Pennsylvania]], [[Michigan]], and [[Wisconsin]], which a Republican had not won for 20–30 years.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/08/first-polls-close-in-2016-race-trump-projected-to-win-ind-ky-clinton-wins-vt.html Trump wins presidency, defeats Clinton in historic election upset]. ''Fox News''. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Blake, Aaron (November 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/ Donald Trump just blew up the electoral map]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> The polling and predictions were off dramatically.<ref>Flint, Joe & Alpert, Lukas I. (November 9, 2016). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-polling-in-hand-media-misses-mark-badly-with-election-predictions-1478710860 How the Media’s Election Predictions Badly Missed the Mark]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

A version of ''[[Newsweek]]'' magazine was printed that reported a Clinton victory, saying "Madam President: Hillary Clinton’s historic journey to the White House", was published and distributed before the election results even came in.<ref>Greenslade, Roy (November 10, 2016). [https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/10/if-only-donald-trump-had-come-second-eh-hillary Madam President: how Newsweek reported a Clinton victory]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> It appears that it is procedural and normal to make a copy for both candidates, but Clinton signed a copy of it prior to the election.<ref>Taylor, Kristinn (November 9, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/hubris-hillary-clinton-signed-newsweek-madam-president-cover-election-eve/ Hubris: Hillary Clinton Signed Newsweek ‘Madam President’ Cover On Election Eve]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> She later admitted that she did not draft a concession speech.<ref>Shepherd, Todd (September 10, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-concedes-i-had-not-drafted-a-concession-speech/article/2633949 Hillary Clinton concedes: 'I had not drafted a concession speech']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 11, 2017.</ref>

After the election, ''The American Spectator'' reported that on the night of the election, Clinton threw a massive extreme temper tantrum after she had realized she lost the election.<ref name="HRCMeltdown">Multiple references:
*R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (November 14, 2016). [https://spectator.org/where-was-hillary/ Where Was Hillary?]. ''The American Spectator.'' Retrieved August 20, 2017.
*Flynn, Daniel J. (November 15, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/hillary-clinton-screaming-obscenities-and-throwing-objects-in-election-night-meltdown/ Hillary Clinton Screaming Obscenities and Throwing Objects in Election Night Meltdown]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> According to a Secret Service agent, it was reported that "she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage."<ref name="HRCMeltdown"/> Additionally, it was further reported that she became physical towards John Podesta and Robby Mook, needing to be restrained.<ref>Rusty (November 15, 2016). [http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-drunk-violent-meltdown-election-night/ Reports: Clinton Had a Violent Meltdown on Election Night]. ''The Political Insider''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> This explains why she did not make a concession speech on election night, and why she delayed it the next morning multiple times.<ref>[http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Clinton-calls-Trump-to-congratulate-him-on-victory--400515131.html UPDATE | Clinton campaign pushes back address one hour]. ''WRDW'' (with ''AP''). November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref><ref>Strause, Jackie (November 9, 2016). [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-emotional-sorry-watch-945702 Hillary Clinton Delivers Emotional, Inspiring Concession Speech: "I'm Sorry"]. ''The Hollywood Reporter''. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref> Although Clinton had repeatedly claimed that Trump was too "temperamentally unfit"<ref>Balakrishana, Anita (September 8, 2016). [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clinton-press-conference.html Clinton: Trump is totally unqualified to be commander in chief]. ''CNBC''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> or "irresponsible" to be president, this evidence, and others, shows otherwise.<ref name="RiddellHRCtemper">Riddell, Kelly (May 23, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/hillary-clinton-hits-trump-temper-shes-no-picnic/ Hillary Clinton hits Trump on temper, but she’s no picnic, either]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref><ref name="UnruhHRCviolent">Unruh, Bob (November 15, 2016). [http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/report-hillary-physically-violent-after-losing/ Report: Hillary 'physically violent' after losing]. ''WND''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref>

After condemning Trump's pre-election refusal to accept election results regardless of outcome as a threat to democracy, Clinton donors funded a recount effort only in states Trump won which backfired and netted Trump a gain in popular vote totals. Wealthy donors who contributed over $1 billion to her campaign demanded an accounting for her loss, insisting without an independent, dispassionate review they could not be expected to continue contributing to the Democratic party in the future.<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715</ref> The Clinton machine and Obama administrations responded by blaming [[Vladimir Putin]] and FBI Director James Comey for the loss rather than mismanagement and poor strategic planning.

===Anti-Trump violence and hate crimes===
After the election, childish [[leftists]] and [[anarchists]], who could not accept the results of the election, strongly protested Trump's victory and committed outrageous and extreme acts of vandalism and violence.<ref name="Protests">Chiaramonte, Perry (November 10, 2016). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html Trump protests intensify, as doubts swirl about spontaneity]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Trump supporters were the victims of numerous targeted attacks, brutal violence, and [[hate crime]]s.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/video-emerges-group-beating-chicago-man-while-yelling-dont-vote-trump.html Video emerges of mob beating Chicago man while yelling 'don't vote Trump']. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2016/11/trump-supporter-15-beaten-during-rockville-protest/slide/1/</ref> A tech company corporate CEO threatened to murder Donald Trump.<ref>http://bgr.com/2016/11/15/man-threatens-to-kill-trump-ceo-sniper/</ref> The brutal and disturbing anti-Trump hate crimes (or hate crimes closely related to Trump's election) continued to occur into the next year.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/facebook-live-attack-latest-in-string-anti-trump-assaults.html Facebook Live attack the latest in string of anti-Trump assaults]. ''Fox News''. January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref> Democrat leaders, Obama and the Clinton machine refused to condemn the hate and violence. Ads for paid protesters appeared on Craigslist. Many of these protests were likely organized and coordinated, as many protestors were bused in by Coach buses.<ref name="Protests"/>
[[Image:Scream.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Many Clinton supporters likened Hillary's loss, and Donald Trump's victory, to Edward Munch's ''The Scream''.]]
Despite these attacks, liberals and leftists only focused on alleged attacks by Trump supporters against minorities and others (the false leftist narrative, although being blatantly false and one-sided, fits their manufactured narrative that Trump supporters are "racist" and "evil" and that leftists are "tolerant" and "forgiving", despite the opposite being true). It was found that despite the number of real anti-Trump attacks, several of the "pro-Trump" attacks were found to be hoaxes.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump"/>

===The ''shattered'' Clinton campaign===
Clinton continued to blame "misogyny" (even from women) for her loss of the election, as well as supposed Russian meddling in the election, James Comey, and WikiLeaks.<ref>Breitman, Kendall (April 7, 2017). [http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581 Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump]. ''NBC News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Kew, Ben (April 6, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2017/04/06/hillary-clinton-again-blames-misogyny-for-election-defeat/ Hillary Clinton Again Blames ‘Misogyny’ for Election Defeat]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref>

In April 2017, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes released the book ''Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'' revealed that the Clinton campaign was a dysfunctional disaster and that numerous mistakes during the campaign contributed to her defeat.<ref>Adams, Becket; Weaver, Al (April 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/im-sorry-clinton-campaign-disaster-laid-bare-in-new-book/article/2620518 'I'm sorry': Clinton campaign disaster laid bare in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Geraghty, Jim (April 19, 2017). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446885/shattered-jonathan-allen-amie-parnes-clinton-campaign-dysfunction-revealed Shattered Illusions]. ''National Review''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Kakutani, Michiko (April 17, 2017). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book reveals that Clinton did not plan on conceding the election until Obama told her to do so.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-excerpts-from-shattered-and-what-they-tell-us-about-clintons-loss/ Takeaways from the Clinton campaign autopsy "Shattered"]. ''CBS News''. April 18, 2017. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book also revealed that within 24 hours after her loss, the Clinton campaign, particularly [[John Podesta]] and [[Robby Mook]], developed the claim of alleged collusion between Trump and Russia to give to the public as the center reason for the loss.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/shattered-revelation-clinton-campaign-hatched-russian-hacking-narrative-24-hours-after-hillarys-loss/ ‘Shattered’ Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillary’s Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref>

*Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes (2017). ''[https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084 Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign]''. New York: Crown. ISBN: 978-0553447088.

In May 2017, former Democrat Vice President [[Joe Biden]] admitted: "I never thought [Clinton] was a great candidate."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/19/biden-knocks-clinton-not-great-candidate.html Biden knocks Clinton: Not a 'great' candidate]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 19, 2017.</ref>

Clinton blamed nearly everything except herself for her election loss.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/01/list-everyone-everything-hillary-clinton-has-blamed-loss-trump Here's a List of Everyone & Everything Hillary Has Blamed for Her Loss]. ''Fox News Insider''. June 1, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Concha, Joe (September 13, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/350404-foxs-guilfoyle-clinton-mad-at-everybody Fox's Guilfoyle: Clinton 'mad at everybody']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
See also:
*Giaritelli, Anna (September 13, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-my-own-mistakes-werent-enough-to-lose-the-election/article/2634237 Hillary Clinton: My own mistakes weren't enough to lose the election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.</ref> She blamed figures both on the Right and Left,<ref>Nelson, Louis (September 12, 2017). [https://www.politico.eu/article/hillary-clinton-book-memoir-12-times-dishes-out-payback-in-her-tell-all-book/ 12 times Clinton dishes out payback in her tell-all book]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> as well as Chief Justice [[John Roberts]]<ref>Lovelace, Ryan (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-blames-chief-justice-john-roberts-for-contributing-to-her-election-loss-in-new-book/article/2634059 Hillary Clinton blames Chief Justice John Roberts for contributing to her election loss in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> blue collar workers,<ref>Wegmann, Philip (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-writes-that-jd-vance-was-right-hillbillies-lost-me-my-election/article/2634117 Hillary Clinton writes that J.D. Vance was right. Hillbillies lost me my election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and misogynist white women. In her 2017 book ''What Happened'', in which she blamed many of those people, Clinton effectively stated that authoritarianism can be started through the questioning of leaders,<ref>Adams, Becket (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-funny-idea-of-authoritarianism/article/2634180 Hillary Clinton's funny idea of authoritarianism]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and she stated that all Democrats should vote in favor of abortion every time even if they are pro-life.<ref>Berry, Susan (September 12, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-democrats-who-are-pro-life-must-vote-to-promote-abortion/ Hillary Clinton: Democrats Who Are Pro-Life Must Vote to Promote Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Jashinsky, Emily (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-urges-democratic-party-to-adopt-litmus-test-on-abortion-in-new-book/article/2634060 Hillary Clinton urges Democratic Party to adopt litmus test on abortion in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> She blamed at least 27 different people or entities for her loss.<ref>Starr, Penny (November 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/08/27-excuses-hillary-clinton-has-made-for-her-2016-election-loss/ 27 Excuses Hillary Clinton Has Made for Her 2016 Election Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 8, 2017.</ref>

==Later life==
Since Dir. Comey's firing by President Trump, and the ascendancy the [[Attorney General]] [[Jeff Sessions]], Clinton may face more [[legal]] problems in relation to pay-to-play schemes as [[Secretary of State]] and donations to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

FBI director [[James Comey]] reopened an investigation into Clinton due to substantiated suspicions that former Attorney General [[Loretta Lynch]] was covering for her.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 23, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/23/russians-hacked-democrats-plans-cheat-general-election/ The Russians Hacked Democrats’ Plans to Cheat in the General Election, Too]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> Comey revealed that Clinton had sent classified information to [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>Wong, Kristina (May 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/03/comey-defends-himself-says-makes-him-mildly-nauseous-to-think-he-affected-election/ Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

As of May 2016, Clinton planned on forming per own PAC and becoming a paid speaker.<ref>Berger, Judson (May 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/clinton-obama-return-to-public-eye-with-new-ventures.html Clinton, Obama return to public eye with new ventures]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref> She created a PAC, called "Onward Together", which intended to promote left-wing and [[Opposition to Donald Trump|anti-Trump]] causes.<ref>Weber, Joseph (May 18, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/18/clinton-pac-aims-to-boost-left-wing-anti-trump-groups-will-still-have-clout.html Clinton PAC aims to boost left-wing, anti-Trump groups – will she still have clout?] ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 18, 2017.</ref>

Despite criticizing Trump during the campaign for refusing to accept the election results as legitimate, Clinton did not rule out doing the same thing after the election.<ref>Yilek, Caitlin (September 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-presidential-election/article/2634777 Hillary Clinton won't rule out questioning legitimacy of presidential election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref>

In September 2018, the Texas Board of Education voted to pull Clinton from the state's social studies curriculum.<ref>Farber, Madeline (September 14, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/texas-board-ed-votes-to-pull-hillary-clinton-and-helen-keller-from-social-studies-curriculum.html Texas Board of Ed votes to pull Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller from social studies curriculum]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 15, 2018.</ref>

==Quotes==
*"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being."<ref>''The Case Against Hillary Clinton ', [[Peggy Noonan]], p. 55</ref>

==See also==
*[[Clinton Cash]]
*[[Freedom of Choice Act]]
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate timeline 2016 election year]]
*[[Russiagate timeline 2017]]
*[[Russiagate timeline|Russiagate timeline 2018]]
*[[Uranium One bribery scandal]]
*[[Benghazigate timeline]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton facts]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton's net worth]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton and Watergate]]
*[[Clinton scandal]]s
*[[Awan investigation]]
*[[Sandy Berger]]
*[[Charles Schumer]]
*[[Honorarium]]
*[[FusionGPS]]
*[[Marc Elias]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
*[https://www.hillaryclinton.com Hillary Rodham Clinton 2016 campaign website]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=Clinton+Email&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber= 12,173 declassified stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email 30,322 stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department under the FOIA]
*[https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/ Stolen Clinton emails recovered by Russian Television]
*[https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton Declassified FBI criminal investigation documents]
*[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NARA-Whitewater-OIC-report-pg-17-38.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiCmYSQuPLOAhUUT2MKHXvlDfIQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFsX5z4OidXZMAJTkf5XsXn-B58QQ&sig2=2Uuf3pYqTlZPGjM2k11X6Q Summary of Evidence for Draft Indictment], Office of the Independent Counsel, 4/10/98
*[https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor State of Arkansas v Thomas Alfred Taylor]. Official record of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1975 defense of a child rapist.

{{Liberalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Hillary Clinton]]
[[Category:Bill Clinton]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]
[[Category:Clinton Administration]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Obama Cabinet]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of State]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax]]
[[Category:Clinton scandals]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:2000s]]
[[Category:2010s]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2018-11-08T18:13:16Z

Reevestehsnek: added citations for "Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination while under criminal investigation."

{{Officeholder
|name=Hillary Rodham Clinton
|image=Hillary Clinton.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Bill Clinton]]
|religion=
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=United States
|number=67th
|deputy=n
|president=[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|terms=January 21, 2009 – January 30, 2013
|preceded=[[Condoleezza Rice]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[John Forbes Kerry]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New York
|terms=January 3, 2001 – January 21, 2009
|preceded=[[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Kirsten Gillibrand]]
}}
}}
'''Hillary Rodham Clinton''' (born '''Hillary Diane Rodham''' on October 26, 1947) is a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and Democratic Presidential candidate. Clinton won the Democratic Presidential nomination while under [[criminal]] investigation.<ref>[https://youtu.be/mzs3K-oEjOA?t=1854 ''White House Admits Hillary Clinton Is Under Criminal Investigation'']</ref><ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/10/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-692016 ''ctrl+f Last subject matter.'']</ref> Multiple subsequent inquiries determined the [[Obama administration]] seriously mishandled the Clinton investigations with numerous improprieties. Clinton lost the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 Presidential election]] to [[Donald Trump]] and blamed [[FBI]] Director [[James Comey]], white men, and self-hating women controlled by their husbands. Clinton has expressed interest in leading the Democratic party again in 2020.

Most people who voted for Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries were unaware Clinton was under criminal investigation at the time, as the [[mainstream media]] failed to report it. Subsequent [[leak]]s of [[Democratic National Committee]] emails revealed primary election tampering, vote rigging, and voter suppression. The Obama administration and Clinton campaign [[collude]]d with [[Russia]]n operatives to produce an "insurance policy" of [[fake news]] against Trump's election alleging a [[Trump-Russia]] connection.<ref>http://circa.com/politics/alf-bank-in-russia-said-donald-trump-computer-connections-may-have-been-hacker-hoax</ref>

Clinton is known for her [[racist]] remarks.

==Background and positions==
She is a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. According to financial disclosure statements, she has served uninterruptedly as Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Family Foundation since 2001.<ref>[https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/clintons-pfd-2015.pdf Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report], OGE Form 278, Hillary Rodham Clinton, 05/15/15, p.19</ref> She is the wife of former President [[Bill Clinton]] who was [[impeach]]ed for providing false testimony and covering up sexual misconduct.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm|title=Approved Articles of Impeachment|date=December 20, 1998|accessdate=November 2, 2016}}</ref> Mr. Clinton has been accused of violent [[sexual assault]] by numerous surviving victims over many years,<ref>[https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/643475466490388480 Hillary Clinton on Twitter 10:24 AM - 14 Sep 2015].</ref> nonetheless Hillary has stood by him and attacked his accusers.<ref>[http://www.prorev.com/whtwtrr.htm Clinton Scandal Clips from The Progressive Review] June 2000 - Aug 2000</ref>

She is an [[elitist]], [[liberal]], [[pro-abortion]] advocate, supports the death penalty, federal funding for embryotic stem-cell research, [[same-sex marriage]] (which she originally opposed but flip-flopped once popular opinion shifted in favor of it, as did many other Democrat politicians during the 1990s and 2000s), and civil unions.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight - video]</ref> Her manipulation of racial politics and victims of sex crimes in the 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections has left her with an abysmal record in the fight for [[civil rights]], fairness, equal treatment of women and minorities and victims of sex crimes.

==Early history==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton early life and career]]''
Hillary Clinton was born in the rich white suburbs of Chicago. She attended Maine East High School, where she wrote for the school newspaper, participated in student council, was chairperson of the Young Republicans, and was selected for National Honor Society.<ref name="Whitehouse.gov">{{cite web |title=Hillary Rodham Clinton |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/first-ladies/hillaryclinton |publisher=The White House |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref>

[[Carl Bernstein]] has chronicled the history of mental illness and depression which runs in the Rodham family. Her uncle attempted to hang himself but eventually died as an alcoholic in a fire while smoking in bed. Her other uncle died of coronary thrombosis or blood clotting in the heart. Her brothers lived "in a fog of melancholia."

Her father was emotionally abusive to her mother and the whole household; neighbors could not understand why her mother wouldn't leave him, despite her constantly expressing a desire to do so. Or his willingness to see her leave. This was before Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, so it wasn't that easy to break up a family.

Bernstein describes her father as, "a sour, unfulfilled man whose children suffered his relentless, demeaning sarcasm and misanthropic inclination, endured his embarrassing parsimony, and silently accepted his humiliation and verbal abuse of their mother....he had almost no recognizable enthusiasms or pretense to lightness as he descended into continuous bullying, ill-humor, complaint, and dejection." Her notorious temper and abusive attitude toward underlings was inherited from her father.<ref>http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-strengths-and-anger-white-house-revealed</ref> Her father was a Republican and her mother a Democrat, they used to joke how they cancelled each other's vote out.

She attended Wellesley College, which at the time was segregated by sex, and graduated in 1969 during the height of radical opposition to the Vietnam War. She graduated with honors based on her 92-page senior thesis entitled ''"There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.'' The subject was famed [[community organizer]] [[Saul Alinsky]]. When Clinton became First Lady, researchers sought access to the document, but the White House asked Wellesley to hide the embarrassment. Wellesley complied and refused access to researchers.

From 1969 to 1973, she attended Yale Law School where she worked on the editorial board of the ''Yale Review of Law and Social Action''.<ref name="arkhc">{{cite web |url=http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2744 |title=Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (1947–) |work=The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture |accessdate=June 28, 2016}}</ref> During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center which involved research on early childhood brain development. In the late spring of 1971 she, among others, got involved with [[Bill Clinton]]. [[Yoko Ono]], widow of [[Beatle]] songwriter [[John Lennon]], claims to have had a brief romantic fling with Hillary at this time. Ono told reporters in 2016 her election "would be a great advancement for [[LGBT]] and Women rights in America”.<ref>http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/</ref>

Ever the ambitious opportunist, she accepted an appointment to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Impeachment during the [[Watergate scandal]].<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-11-05/how-richard-nixon-created-hillary-clinton How Richard Nixon Created Hillary Clinton], Sam Tanenhaus, Nov 5, 2015. bloomberg.com</ref> Liberal sycophantic [[sexist]]s loyal to Bill Clinton deny she received this appointment on her own merit. They claim the position was offered to Bill first, and when he refused he suggested Rodham for it, which is highly unlikely. The appointment was made by John Doar, a Republican counsel on the committee. Given her Republican credentials as chairperson of the Wellesley Young Republicans, and her previous employment on Capitol Hill in 1968 in the office of the Ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Melvin Laird who became Nixon's Defense Secretary, and the fact she had better grades than Bill at Yale Law School, this appears to be just another leftover highly facitious claim in building the Bill Clinton myth and mystique.

After Nixon resigned she headed to Arkansas where Bill was carrying on with several other women including a childhood sweetheart who reports Hillary smelled so bad from not showering it made her gag.<ref>https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2059308/bill-clinton-nicknamed-bad-smelling-hillary-the-warden-but-wanted-a-baby-to-quash-rumours-she-was-a-lesbian-his-long-term-lover-claims/</ref> Bill and Hillary had mapped out personal and political career ambitions together and a [[States Rights]] agenda to accomplish it. Bill unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1974. The two married on October 11, 1975. He was elected Governor in 1978, defeated in 1980, resumed it uninterruptedly til he became president. Bill said she only wanted a child so people wouldn't think she's a lesbian, and daughter Chelsea was born in 1980. When a [[Federal court]] ruled the Clinton's violated the [[Voting Rights Act]] with their legislative reapportionment plan,<ref>42 U.S.C. 1973</ref> their grip on Arkansas was slipping and they began making plans for a play on Wasington.

As a lawyer Hillary is an expert in medical confidentiality laws. Sam Smith of the leftist ''Progressive Review'' reported in 1998 an incident which occurred after Bill Clinton's electoral defeat in 1980. Bill Clinton arrived in a Little Rock emergency room with a drug overdose. Smith wrote,
{{Quotebox|Hillary Clinton had been notified by phone and had instructed the hospital staff that Clinton's personal physician would be arriving soon. When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident physicians on duty that night that they would never practice medicine in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton's drug problem. Reportedly, she pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave her dire warning.<ref>http://prorev.com/connex.htm</ref>}}

===Inslaw and the PROMIS technology===
'''[[Inslaw Inc]]''' developed the famous PROMIS software, an NCIC-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial institutions, utility companies, etc. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Dept., which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by US intelligence worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks, which included a "backdoor" for US intelligence to hack into. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for a company that obtained and marketed to banks copies of the stolen PROMIS software.<ref>https://youtu.be/m1GEnF1pdZ0</ref>

The PROMIS software explains why Bill Clinton never uses email. [[Dick Morris]]'s explanation - that the genuis with a 174 IQ who can work a complete ''New York Times'' crossword puzzle in 15 minutes while sitting on the toilet - does not know how to type maybe true. But Clinton most definitely knows through Hillary, who was close!y involved in these matters since the mid 1980s, there is no way ever to keep emails secret. Bill Clinton is in the habit of issueing oral instructions to close aides and the use of surrogates for communication, deniability, and no paper trail.

Several mysterious deaths are associated with the lawsuits the owners of Inslaw brought against the government for the theft of Inslaw's intellectual property that Hillary Clinton represented as the property of Systematics. In one case an entire fami!y was murdered.
*'''Larry Guerrin''' - February 1987. Investigator. Killed investigating the INSLAW case.
*'''Alan Standorf''' - January 31, 1991. Employee of [[National Security Agency]] in electronic intelligence. Standorf was a source of information for [[Danny Casolaro]] who was investigating INSLAW, [[BCCI]], etc. Standorf's dead body was found in the backseat of a car at Washington National Airport.
*'''Dennis Eisman''' - April 5, 1991. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Eisman was found shot to death.
*'''Ian Spiro''' - November 1992. Informant. Spiro had supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the INSLAW case. '''His wife and three children''' were found murdered on November 1, 1992 in their home. They all died of gunshot wounds to the head. Ian's body was found several days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cyanide poisoning.
*'''John Crawford''' - April 1993. Attorney with information on INSLAW. Reportedly died from a heart attack in Tacoma.

===Iran-Contra===
:''Main article:'' [[Iran-Contra]]
The [[Mena Airport]] in Arkansas became the logistical point for implementation of the Iran-Contra ordeal.<ref>https://youtu.be/g_epmurfIk8 ; see also Bill Plante & Michael Singer, ''Still a Strong Scent on the Mena Trail'', Letter to the Editor, [[Wall Street Journal]], 5/3/94.</ref> Gross value of the illegally imported [[narcotic]]s at Mena is said to have reached $100 million per month at its height, nearly ten times its cost of delivery in trade and arms.

Mena airport was documented to be the biggest drug-smuggling operation in the [[United States]] importing $100 million per month in cocaine.<ref>https://youtu.be/vKdPaQnZ1DA</ref> It is alleged that much of that money had been laundered through the [[Arkansas Development Finance Authority]] (ADFA), a bonding agency that Bill Clinton created to help small businesses get started. The video and Mara Leveritt's 1999 book, ''The Boys on the Tracks'' discussed that Bill Clinton's half-brother, Roger Clinton, and his bond dealer friend [[Dan Lasater]] had gone to prison for [[cocaine]]. Richard Garrett had stated on ''Unsolved Mysteries'', a television program which taped informational segments regarding the boys' on the tracks beginning in 1988,<ref>http://unsolved.com/archives/don-henry-kevin-ives</ref> that Saline County and Central Arkansas were overrun with drug-trafficking at a high level that extended to other counties and other states.

Even when Mena's gun-running operation was shut down after 1986, Mena continued to be used for illegal narcotics smuggling into the United States and the profits were pocketed by locals under then Governor [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/08/26/the-boys-on-the-tracks-are-back</ref> In 1989 Clinton received petitions from Arkansas citizens demanding he convene a state grand jury and investigate Mena.<ref>[http://bondiviewertest.azurewebsites.net/DataView/Article/HT?issueKey=19920501&articleKey=19920501021 Clinton Turned Blind Eye to Arkansas Contra Connections], ''High Times'', May 1992, p. 21</ref> Winston Bryant made Mena an issue in his successful bid for Arkansas [[Attorney General]] in 1990. A year later Bryant turned over state files involving Mena to Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, but Walsh did nothing with the reams of evidence.

===Mena airport===
:''Main article:'' [[Mena airport]]
[[File:320px-Contra commandas 1987.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Contras. Bill, Hillary, Vince Foster, and others ran the US end of the guns-for-dope operation. Webb Hubbell and other Clinton associates ran the money laundering schemes. By 1992, [[George H.W. Bush|Bush Senior]] owed enough of a debt for their cooperation and silence, and the Clintons had enough to blackmail the Bush's with to mount a direct challenge for the presidency. The Contra operation also gave the Clintons' opportunity to expand their contacts within the US Intelligence Community. By the time it was supposedly investigated in 1987, no one asked the obvious question: ''How were the Contras funded for 4 years before any weapons were sold to Iran?'' Within the name itself, 'Iran-Contra', implies the cover-up. Mena-Contra is more aptly fitting. Just as in the 'Benghazi investigation,' which masked Obama and Hillary supply efforts to ISIS - a bipartisan effort of which Republican [[Sen. John McCain]] was [[Obama war crimes#February 2012|also involved]].<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/09/11/exclusive-new-emails-in-benghazi-weapons-mystery.html</ref>]]
[[Hillary Clinton]] asked [[Vince Foster]] to help her spy on her husband in 1990. She wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race. Foster hired Jerry Parks, an Arkansas investigator who later worked as the head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters in [[Little Rock]]. According to Parks’s widow, “Jerry asked Vince why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary.”<ref>http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/new-documents-prove-hillary-clinton-murder-cover/#ixzz4Nvn7BWqq</ref>

Parks did other work for Foster. According to his wife, Parks delivered large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovered this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she had to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asked her husband whether he was dealing [[drugs]], and Foster explained that he paid Parks $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena.<ref>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm</ref>

"I'M A DEAD MAN," whispered Parks, as he looked up at the television screen. It was a news bulletin on the local station in Little Rock. Vincent Foster, a childhood friend of the President, had been found dead by the US Park Service outside Washington. Apparent suicide. He muttered darkly that Bill Clinton's people were "cleaning house," and he was "next on the list."

After Foster's death on July 20, 1993 Parks' home on Barrett Road was burglarized in a sophisticated operation that involved cutting the telephone lines and disarming the electronic alarm system. The dossier Parks had assembled at Hillary and Foster's request was stolen.

Two months later, in September 23, 1993, on the way back from El Chico Mexican Restaurant, at about 6:30 PM, a white Chevrolet Caprice pulled up beside him on the Chenal Parkway. An assassin let off a volley of semi-automatic fire. Parks skidded to a halt in the intersection of Highway 10. The killer jumped out and finished him off with a 9 mm handgun—two more shots into the chest at point blank range. Several witnesses watched as the gunman joined his accomplice in the waiting car and sped away.

The [[mainstream media|national media]] ignored the story of the gangland killing of the head of security of the Clinton/Gore campaign headquarters.

The Little Rock Police told asked Mrs. Parks not to talk to the press until the case was solved, and she had agreed. By the spring of 1994 she was losing faith. The original detective, Tom James, had been pulled off the case. It was becoming apparent that the eyewitness accounts of the death were being ignored by the police. Witnesses had described two assassins: hefty men, with beer bellies and broad shoulders, greyish hair, in their late forties or early fifties. Yet the police kept saying that there was only one killer in the car.

Jane Parks went to visit a top official from the State Police whom she knew well from church. He told her outright that the [[murder]] was a conspiracy hatched in Hot Springs by five men who moved in the social circle of Buddy Young, the former chief of Governor Clinton's security detail and now the regional director of the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) for the south-central [[United States]]. She was given the names of the five men, and was told that they flipped coins to decide which two would carry out the execution. And finally, she was told that nothing was ever going to be done about it.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040402111006/http://terpsboy.com/Articles/JerryParks.html The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton], Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 1997</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ACyGsAAjfCI</ref><ref>https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Bill-Clinton-Unreported/dp/0895264080</ref>

===The Ives/Henry case===
The Clinton political machine and local economy had a vested interest for enrichment of themselves by continuing illegal drug smuggling after the CIA shut down the Contra supply operation and left Arkansas. On April 23, 1987, two 16 year old boys, Kevin Ives and Don Henry, stumbled upon and witnessed an aerial drop in the area of Bauxite and Alexander, Arkansas.<ref>http://www.idfiles.com</ref> Initial cause of death was claimed to be the result of passing out on a railroad track in Arkansas after smoking [[marijuana]].<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-14/news/mn-623_1_preliminary-report</ref> The ruling was made by Arkansas' State medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak.<ref>https://youtu.be/v4yO7sdYiCI</ref>

In April 1988, Kevin's body was exhumed, and another autopsy was performed, this one by Atlanta medical examiner Dr. Joseph Burton who discovered that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks. Don Henry's body was exhumed and discovered to have been stabbed in the back prior to being placed on the tracks. The deaths were indeed homocides.

Arkansas State Police (ASP) files of the investigation report the area where the two boys' bodies were found was a drop zone for drugs. Another report was that on the night the boys were killed, two witnesses saw two [[police]] officers beat up two boys and throw them in the back of a police car a short distance from where the bodies were found.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20050221103949/www.geocities.com/theoctopus22/thetraindeaths.html</ref>

John Brown, an investigator for the Saline County Sheriffs office, reported that Sheriff Pridgen and ex-prosecutor Jean Duffey talked to a pilot in [[Texas]] who admitted being a drug pilot and remembered that he had flown drugs to points near the Saline-Pulaski county lines, precisely where the boys' bodies were found. Prosecutor Duffey concluded the cover-up was because the drugs were Mena drugs.

A federal investigation was begun, but the Assistant United States Attorney, Bob Govar, reported that the FBI and DEA did not seem interested and did not furnish much help. Other reports in the state police file revealed that residents had complained about frequent low-flying planes in the area around the tracks.
[[File:14324699 1473274228.6179 funddescription.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Kevin Ives (right) and Don Henry (left) were the best of friends. The two were murdered when they stumbled across the Clinton network's dope and gun running operation in [[Mena Arkansas]].<ref>https://www.gofundme.com/donhenry-kevinives</ref> The [[Clinton body count]] originated with the Ives/Henry case and the mysterious deaths of seven witnesses, including a case the State Coroner ruled as suicide with the deceased's head found in a dumpster several blocks away.]]
During the Clinton administration in September 1995, agent William Temple of Clinton's FBI office in [[Little Rock]] told Linda Ives and her husband that it might be time for her to consider that a crime was not committed although the FBI had been working for two years on the case through its agent, Phyllis Coman.

In March 1996, the documentary, ''Obstruction of Justice'',<ref>https://youtu.be/965M_9BCYsw</ref> was released about the investigation into the murders and Dan Harmon's activities. John Brown, a former Saline county detective on the video, made the link between drug corruption in Saline County and drug corruption at Mena which began when Russell Welch, the Arkansas State police investigator in Mena, gave him a statement made by a confidential informant in federal prison which said the boys were killed because of the drug activity they had discovered and it was connected to the drug enterprise headquartered at Mena. The video explained what was known about Barry Seal and his use of airplanes to distribute cocaine. Brown told of reports he had found in the Saline County Sheriffs office dating back to 1987 and 1988 of residents living there where the boys' bodies were found complaining of planes flying over the tracks at 100 feet above ground level with their lights out.

In November 1996, Linda Ives, Kevin Ives mother, got a call from Philip Weiss who told her
he had been asked to prepare an article in the ''New York Times Magazine'' about people who hated Clinton. Weiss explained that Mark Fabiani, a White House lawyer, provided him with a set of news clippings about people who oppose the president and among those was a story about the "boys on the tracks." Linda Ives called Micah Morrison, an editorial page writer for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', who had written an article about her earlier in the year,<ref>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/MoneyInvesting/edit/o-ed4181.html</ref> inquiring about Phillip Weiss, and telling Morrison that Weiss talked about a packet of press clippings Weiss got from Fabiani including the article Morrison had written. Morrison then made wrote an article in the ''Wall Street Journal'', January 6, 1997, in which he broke the news that the White House was distributing to reporters packets of news clips to attack victims claiming it to be "conspiracy theories and innuendo."<ref>http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.html</ref>

===Other deaths in the Ives/Henry case===
*'''James "Dewey" Milam''' – May 30, 1987. Found decapitated. Dr. Fahmy Malak, the Coroner initially ruled death due to "natural causes" and an ulcer, claiming that the victim's small dog had eaten his head. Milam's head later was recovered fully intact from a trash bin several blocks away.
*'''Keith Coney''' – July 1988. Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck.
*'''Keith McMaskle''' – November 1988. Owner of a local bar. Stabbed 113 times to death.
*'''Gregory Collins''' – January 1989. Died from a gunshot wound.
*'''Jeff Rhodes''' – April 1989. He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump.
*'''Richard Winters''' – July 1989. A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery.
*'''Jordan Kettleson''' – June 1990. Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck.

===Eleanor Roosevelt and Huma Abedin===
After the death of [[Vince Foster]], whom Hillary was very close to, she is said to have fallen into a deep depression and reached out to author William Stayron who wrote about his own struggles with depression.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/books/chapters/0715-1st-bernstein.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</ref> In 1996 [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported Hillary Clinton consulted psychic mediums to contact the spirit of the deceased former First Lady [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] for advice.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/US/9606/22/hillary.book/</ref> This was not unprecedented, [[Mary Todd Lincoln]] held seances in the White House attempting to contact her loved ones. Hillary in many ways identified with Eleanor Roosevelt.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/hillarys-other-side-178552</ref>

Eleanor Roosevelt had been caught on surveillance "quite clearly having sexual intercoarse" with a younger man, [[Joe Lash]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Eroose2.jpg</ref> The story was leaked to the press.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cVzNFWV_rvEC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=westbrook+pegler+joe+lash&source=bl&ots=IMvenoPmub&sig=ZR7pa9GcKAsAY08BolOOHWgviPk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLuJzRsJDQAhXprVQKHfV2D6kQ6AEIezAT#v=onepage&q=westbrook%20pegler%20joe%20lash&f=false]. Columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on Mrs. Roosevelt's relations with Joe Lash.</ref> Eleanor arranged a sham marriage between Lash and a friend of hers', [[Gertrude Pratt]], to deflect criticism and attention. Eleanor Roosevelt's [[bisexual]]ity has become the focus of biographers and scholars.<ref>http://www.uis.edu/lgbtqa/eleanorroosevelt/</ref>
[[File:120726-huma-clinton.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Since 1996 the two have been together, with Abedin traveling the country as Clinton's "body woman."<ref>https://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/07/how-close-are-huma-abedin-and-hillary-clinton-169489?slide=0</ref>]]
Bill Clinton outed Hillary as a bisexual.<ref>http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-bisexual-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-interview/</ref> When stories of Hillary's [[lesbian]]ism abounded, Hillary held a press conference to deny the rumors.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hillary-clinton-not-lesbian-article-1.246111</ref> Not long after, Bill Clinton presided over an informal wedding ceremony between Hillary's longtime close associate and confidant, [[Huma Abedin]], who had been working at Hillary's side since 1994, and Rep. [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/dyke-hillary-dyke-hillary-6403108</ref> It was an odd relationship between the two; Weiner lived in New York and commuted to Washington when Congress was in session; Huma, like Hillary. spent the vast majority of time away from their spouse while Hillary and Huma travelled the globe in Hillary's role as Secretary of State.<ref>http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/hillary-lesbian-2.html/</ref><ref>http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-huma-make-surprise-visit-nyc-pride-parade/comment-page-4/</ref>

Weiner was driven from Congress in a sexting scandal. Later it was revealed Weiner's personal computer contained more than a half million emails related to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's email scandal. When the news broke, Hillary didn't separate herself from Huma by firing her, which Huma alone would be responsible for unauthorized State Department information being found on Anthony Weiner's personal computer. Like Nixon, she chose the path of loyalty to subordinates over making a clean break with people accused of lawbreaking, as Reagan had done when he fired [[Oliver North]] or John Kennedy when he fired [[Bay of Pigs|Allen Dulles]]. If elected, the nation faced a [[constitutional crisis]] over her actions, failures, and negligence.

==Scandals 1975–2001, partial list==
:''For a more complete list, see [[Hillary Clinton First Lady]]'' and ''[[Iran-Contra]]''
<center>{{Cquote|<big>If [[Reaganomics]] works at all, Whitewater could become the Western hemisphere's Mecca.</big>|20px|20px|Hillary Clinton in 1981 as reported by [[David Brock]] in ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham'', p. 196.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=mhOoB-ejGIMC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=If+reaganomics+eorks+whitewater+will+be+good&source=bl&ots=oNZfZNH1fw&sig=6oaim2Msj5o_HLBpme7LbdZ8v1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy_Ok3bfPAhWr1IMKHQFzAqMQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=If%20reaganomics%20eorks%20whitewater%20will%20be%20good&f=false ''The Seduction of Hillary Rodham''], David Brock, Simon and Schuster, Feb 2, 1998, p. 196</ref>}}</center>
Only when she met Bill in 1971 did her political views flower and she became a [[Democrat]]. The Clinton marriage is fashioned upon precepts of ''The Art of the Deal''. She allowed him to chase any woman he saw fit, and he allowed her to run the [[Arkansas]] Governor's Mansion and [[White House]] as she saw fit.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-507762/Why-Hillary-Clinton-let-husband-Bill-seduce-woman-sight.html Why Hillary Clinton let husband Bill seduce any woman in sight], By SALLY BEDELL SMITH, 15 January 2008. www.dailymail.co.uk</ref> This was the deal Bill Clinton offered America, two for the price of one.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/18/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-wife-hillary-clinton-aspiring-first-lady-role-model.html?pagewanted=all THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Candidate's Wife; Hillary Clinton as Aspiring First Lady: Role Model, or a 'Hall Monitor' Type?], By MAUREEN DOWD, ''New York Times'', May 18, 1992.</ref>
[[File:Arkansas State Flag.gif|right|thumb|The Arkansas State Flag. The top star above Arkansas represents the slave holding Confederacy, an Act signed into law by Clinton.]]
Of the two, Hillary is the actual brains of the operation. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary and her law partners worked with clients looting depositor's money from Arkansas Savings and Loans which her husband regulated.<ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/ Independent Counsel Memo Laying Out Criminal Case against Hillary Clinton in Whitewater Land Scandal], JANUARY 28, 2016. www.judicialwatch.org</ref> She also pocketed large amounts of cash from complicated commodity future trading straddles.<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-and-wall-street-24-years-enriching-each-other The Clintons and Wall Street: 24 Years of Enriching Each Other], By Richard W. Behan / CounterPunch, February 26, 2016.</ref> As the family breadwinner, Hillary mocked and ridiculed stay-at-home moms.<ref>[http://time.com/4054623/clinton-dunham-tea-cookies/ This Was the Hillary Clinton Comment That Sparked Lena Dunham’s Political Awareness], Denver Nicks, ''Time'', Sept. 29, 2015.</ref>
===Arkansas and US First Lady===
As First Lady she holds the distinction of being the only First Lady in [[United States]] history to come under [[criminal]] investigation both as Arkansas First Lady and in the White House. Having escaped indictment for Whitewater crimes and lying to Congress, she was the first First Lady to run and be elected to Congress while her husband was serving as President.

===Travelgate (''a primer for millenials'')===
As the 2016 election day approached, the elite [[mainstream media]] remained dumbfounded as to why the American people still deemed Hillary Clinton untrustworthy. The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' revisited one of the first scandals to hit the Clinton White House:
{{Quotebox|Under criticism the White House changed its story. They said that they were just trying to cut unneeded staff and save money. Then they said they were trying to impose a competitive bidding process. They tried a new explanation—the travel office shake-up was connected to Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. (Almost immediately Mr. Gore said that was not true.) The White House then said it was connected to a campaign pledge to cut the White House staff by 25%. Finally they claimed the workers hadn’t been fired at all but placed on indefinite “administrative leave."}}
''"Sound familiar? It's just a cough...no, it's just allergies...no, it's heat and dehydration...no, it's pneumonia..."''<ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-17/why-dont-they-trust-her-look-one-hillary-clintons-first-ever-scandals</ref>
{{Quotebox|It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a high White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs—their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins—to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign. And she wanted to give the travel office business itself to loyalists. There was a travel company based in Arkansas with long ties to the Clintons. There was a charter travel company founded by Harry Thomason, a longtime friend and fundraiser, which had provided services in the 1992 campaign. If the travel office were privatized and put to bid, he could get the business.}}
''Deja vu'' all over again...
{{quotebox|'''Clinton Scandal Ritual:''' lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. 'As I’ve repeatedly said . . .'"}}
For a quarter of a century the Clinton name has been synonymous with scandal.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB887244288642713000</ref>

===Death of Vince Foster===
Vince Foster was the highest ranking [[Executive Branch]] official killed in office since [[John F. Kennedy]]. At the time of Kennedy's murder, the killing should have bern handled by the [[Dallas]] police [[homicide]] division. However federal officials and the [[Secret Service]] removed the body and flew it back to [[Washington DC]], interfering with an ongoing investigation. After that botched affair, federal laws were passed making various assaults on or killing of federal officials a federal crime. The new law made the [[FBI]] the lead agency in Foster's death investigation. Various circumstances however left the job in the hands of US Park rangers, and not even the more experienced DC homicide police were involved. Most profoundly, Bill Clinton's firing of the FBI Director the day before Foster's body was discovered in a federal park, left the Bureau stunned, leaderless, and in chaos.
====FBI files relating to Hillary missing from the National Archives====
[[File:Vince-foster-murder-clinton-696x445.png|right|300px|thumb|The Vince Foster gun. The weapon used to kill Foster and the gun found at the scene, among other pertinent facts, raise inexplicable questions.]]
FBI files relating to Hillary's role in the [[Vince Foster]]'s death investigation are now missing from the National Archives.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html</ref>

During the 2016 presidential campaign, in August 2016 [[Vince Foster]] was back in the news. A [[fake news]] story was planted in the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' alleging Foster killed himself because he had been humiliated by Hillary Clinton in a staff meeting one week before killing himself. This story sounds more plausible then the official explanation the ''Washington Post'' has cited for more than two decades - Beth Foster was depressed because he had done Hillary's tax returns,<ref>See for example ''Washington Post'', "The 1993 suicide of White House counsel Vincent Foster, hard on the heels of the travel-office imbroglio and his filing of delinquent Whitewater Corp. tax returns." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm Untangling Whitewater], By Dan Froomkin, Washingtonpost.com Staff.</ref> there are problems with it. Mainly, that according to the First Lady's schedule now at the Clinton Library in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton was in [[Japan]] and the Far East more than two weeks before Foster's body was discovered. She returned to the United States on July 18, spent two days in Arkansas, and wasn't scheduled to return to Washington till after Foster's body was found. Numerous other sources corroborate her schedule.

===Illegal fundraising, 1996===
{{Main|Chinagate fundraising scandal}}
The Chinagate was a campaign finance controversy in which the Clinton's illegally took money from foreign governments and military establishments. Like the Nixon administration, however, it was impossible to get the government to investigate itself, at least to any acceptable or just conclusion before the Clinton's term of office was up.

Agents of China sought to give contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996 presidential campaign]] in violation of US law barring non-American citizens from donating money to American politicians and political parties.<ref>Woodward, Bob and Duffy, Brian, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/china1.htm "Chinese Embassy Role In Contributions Probed"], ''Washington Post'', February 13, 1997.</ref>

An unclassified [[United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs|U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs]] report issued in 1998 stated that both James Riady and his father Mochtar "had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." According to journalist [[Bob Woodward]], details of the relationship came from highly classified intelligence information supplied to the committee by both the CIA and [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]].<ref>Woodward, Bob, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm "Findings Link Clinton Allies to Chinese Intelligence"], ''Washington Post'', Feb. 10, 1998.</ref>
[[File:MOCTAR.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Hillary Clinton with Mochtar Riady at a fundraiser during the [[Chinagate]] scandal. Mochtar Riady, along with Bill Clinton's financial godfather Jackson Stephens, brought the [[BCCI]] to America, a front for international dope dealers and arms traffickers.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hk7XCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT61&lpg=PT61&dq=mochtar+riady+bcci&source=bl&ots=58F2SxmNWF&sig=ZV6dddrtUdo7dmmCfjVhgQZOuLE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpwvS7mvDTAhVH9mMKHc_MC5QQ6AEINzAG#v=onepage&q=mochtar%20riady%20bcci&f=false]</ref>]]
The relationship between John Huang, the Riady Family, and the Clintons, goes back to the late 1970s in Little Rock, Arkansas. The patriarch of the family, Mochtar Riady, is an [[Indonesia]]n of [[Chinese]] descent who built up the Lippo Group empire. In the mid-1970s, Mochtar Riady planned to expand his business into the United States and began looking for partners. He met the Stephens family of Arkansas and entered into various joint ventures with Stephens Inc.

The Stephens famiy were in fact the original owners of the American branch of the notorious [[Bank of Credit and Commerce International]] (BCCI) in a joint venture with the Riady's in the late 1970s and 1980s.<ref>mlhttp://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/06early.htm</ref> It was shut down in the early 1990s in an enormous worldwide criminal money laundering scandal.

In Little Rock the Riadys met then-Governor Bill Clinton and financially supported Clinton’s gubernatorial campaigns throughout the 1980s.

After Riady pledged $1 million in support of then-Governor Clinton's campaign for the presidency 1992, contributions made by Huang had been reimbursed with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account Riady maintained at Lippo Bank and then distributed to Huang in cash. Also, contributions made by Lippo Group entities operating in the United States were reimbursed with wire transfers from foreign Lippo Group entities.<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm "James Riady Pleads Guilty"], Department of Justice, press release, January 11, 2001.</ref><ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/12/huang.sentence/ "Former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang pleads guilty"], ''CNN.com'', Aug. 12, 1999.</ref>

Huang visited the White House 78 times while working as a DNC fund-raiser.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/time9610.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Timeline"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> James Riady visited the White House 20 times including 6 personal visits with President Clinton.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/fundraising.flap/characters.html "The Democratic Fund-Raising Flap: Cast of Characters"], ''CNN.com'', July 1, 1997.</ref> As a key fund-raiser he raised $3.4 million for the party.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/huang.htm "Campaign Finance Key Player: John Huang"], ''Washington Post'', July 27, 1997.</ref>

Immediately prior to joining the DNC, Huang worked in the Clinton's [[Commerce Department]] as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs giving him access to classified intelligence on China.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/US/9905/25/cox.report.highlights/ "Highlights of U.S. report on alleged China spying"], ''CNN.com'', May 25, 1999.</ref>

Under questioning by Sen. Don Nickles during congressional investigations Clinton private investigator Terry Lenzner identified [[Cody Shearer]] as a liaison between Lenzner's firm, Investigative Group International, and the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe. The tribe had donated more than $100,000 to the [[Democratic Party]] hoping that the Clinton administration would intervene on the tribes behalf in a dispute over drilling rights on tribal land. Lenzner's firm had been hired by the Clinton's to discredit Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky and others, and had been retained to uncover compromising links between Sen. Don Nickles-opposed the tribe's claims—and local oil interests.

===Whitewater crimes===

An April 10, 1998 memo in the Whitewater Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) summarized Hillary Clinton's “crimes under consideration” for [[prosecution]].
{{Quotebox|Between January 1994 and February 1996 both Hillary Clinton and [Webster] Hubbell made numerous sworn statements to the [Resolution Trust Corporstion], the FDIC, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the OIC. Each of these reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories relating to: how RLF [Rose Law Firm] came to be retained by MGSL [Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan]; Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL; Hillary Clinton’s role in representing MGSL before state agencies’; Hubbell’s representations to the RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] and FDIC regarding Hillary Clinton’s role in the IDC/Castle Grande venture; and the removal of records from the [Rose Law Firm].}}
[[File:Chelsea Hubbell.jpg|right|375px|thumb|Webster Hubbell and Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton has become the poster child of [[white privilege]] for a generation. Webster Hubbell, an old "family friend," gave up a lifetime appointment on the Arkansas Supreme Court to move to Washington with the Clinton's and serve four years in federal prison on a fraud conviction.]]
According to prosecutors, Hillary drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan in the Castle Grande transaction. Her concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison, were the subject of an OIC obstruction of justice probe.

The memo included substantial evidence depicting Hillary, Hubbell, and Vincent Foster, as complicit in activities that “facilitated crimes.” Hubbell was convicted of fraudulent billing practices and sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and fined $135,000.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060500908.html</ref> The memo noted that Hillary “destroyed” her personal records of her work for Madison Guaranty. The evidence covers:

{{Quotebox|'''Castle Grande.''' “The Castle Grande transactions were crimes.” The statement is followed by an explicit six-paragraph dissection of the land-flipping scheme.

'''[[Madison Guaranty S&L]].''' Hillary minimized the role she played in seeking state regulatory assistance for the corrupt savings and loan, headed by key Clinton financial and political supporter [[James McDougal]]. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

'''Vincent Foster and the Missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records.''' The Rose billing records were a key piece of evidence in the probe. They were missing for years. After Foster’s death, the OIC memo notes "evidence supports the inference that personal documents which Hillary Clinton did not want disclosed were located in Foster’s office at the time of his death and then removed.”

'''Removal of Records from Vincent Foster’s Office.''' “ [O]n the afternoon of July 21st Bernard Nussbaum, then White House Counsel, initially agreed to allow two career DOJ employees to review the documents in Foster’s office for evidence that might shed light on the cause of his death. That evening and the next morning Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, Susan Thomases, and Maggie Williams (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) exchanged 10 separate phones calls … That morning, according to the DOJ employees, Nussbaum changed his mind and refused to allow the DOJ prosecutors to review the documents; instead, he reviewed them himself and segregated several as ‘personal’ to the Clintons.”

'''Hiding the Billing Records.''' “On the evening of July 22nd, Thomas Castleton … assisted Williams [Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton chief of staff] in carrying a box of personal documents up to … a closet in Hillary Clinton’s office. The closet is approximately 30 feet from the table in the Book Room, where the billing records were found 2 years later…."

'''Bying the Silence of a Co-Conspirator.''' Hubbell received several “jobs” from Clinton supporters for which he apparently did little or no work. During a taped conversation in prison, Hubbell appears to acknowledge that he withheld information from the OIC. Several of Hubbell’s job-providers fell most strongly within the hush money allegation.}}

The National Archives is withholding additional documents critical to understanding Clinton’s full role in the Whitewater scandal.<ref>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/</ref>

===Evidence tampering and obstruction===
After the death of White House staffer Vince Foster, 20 year Secret Service veteran Henry O' Neill testified before Congress he observed as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, carry boxes of papers out of Foster's office and up to the White House residence quarters on First Lady Hillary Clinton's instructions.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/01301996.html Whitewater Lost and Found Records], Nightline Transcripts, January 30, 1996. npr.org</ref> The documents related to work performed by Jerry Parks, the head of security for the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign.<ref>[http://contrariansview.org/onashisite/WebVAX/Foster/AEPonQuinn10Oct96.html Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interview], Quinn in the Morning Show, WRRK 97 FM Pittsburgh, October 10, 1996</ref> Under [[oath]], Hillary Clinton denied issuing the instructions or receiving the documents. The documents evidence in the investigation of the death of Vince Foster. Parks was gunned down in a gangland-style shooting in Arkansas two months after Foster's death.<ref>[http://prorev.com/2006/08/strange-death-of-jerry-parks-and-even.htm THE STRANGE DEATH OF JERRY PARKS AND EVEN STRANGER DEATH OF DR DAVID MILLSTEIN], ''Progressive Review'', Sam Smith, Editor, August 23, 2006</ref>

Two years later in 1995 some of the evidence was retrieved from the private White House living quarters. FBI investigators determined Hillary Clinton's fingerprints were on the documents.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-04-30/pdf/CREC-1996-04-30-pt1-PgH4166-3.pdf#page=2 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: First Lady's fingerprints on billing records"] (April 30, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4167-8.
*[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-05-10/pdf/CREC-1996-05-10-pt1-PgH4880-3.pdf#page=1 "Remarks by Congressman (Dan) Burton of Indiana: Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints on billing records II"] (May 10, 1996). ''Congressional Record'' (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office), House of Representatives, 104th Congress, pp. H4880-1.</ref>
===Pay-to-play pardons===
[[Marc Rich]] is the biggest tax cheat in American history. Rich fled the country. He was a big donor to the Clintons and the Democratic party, so [[Bill Clinton]] wanted to pardon him. [[Eric Holder]], who later served as Barack Obama's Attorney General, arranged the pardons.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/16/holder.confirmation/ Former FBI director: Holder was 'used' in Rich pardon], [[CNN]]</ref> Former President [[Jimmy Carter]] publicly called it "disgraceful".<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carter-rich-pardon-disgraceful/ Carter: Rich Pardon 'Disgraceful'], CBSNews.com staff AP February 21, 2001</ref> Rich's wife then donated at least $450,000 to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

==Attacking victims of sexual assault==
Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos writes in his memoirs of the Clinton 'War Room' about assignments to belittle and kill victim's allegations of sexual abuse. "We have to destroy her story," Mrs. Clinton instructed of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign in 1991.

In January 2016, Esquire magazine reported on a gathering in the fashionable Upper East Side apartment of the chief executive of HBO. Several conflicted past and present Clinton surrogates discussed how the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had sexual encounters with, or been [[sexual assault|sexually assaulted]] by former President Bill Clinton.

{{Quotebox|The conversation, relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously, captures the deeper debate unfolding among [[liberal]]-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clinton's leadership on women's issues with her past involvement in her husband's efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct.<ref>[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41327/new-york-times-clinton-rumors/ The New York Times Is Obsessed with 2 Things. You Already Know What They Are.], By Charles P. Pierce, ''Esquire'', Jan 20, 2016.</ref>}}
The conundrum these conflicted Clinton surrogates face is how to explain their own past participation in sliming and vilifying women who came forward with accusations against the President of the United States with a history of untoward, and even violent, sexual misconduct to a generation of Millennials unfamiliar with the brazen history of the pair:
{{Quotebox|Even some [[Democrat]]s who participated in the effort to discredit the women acknowledge privately that today, when Mrs. Clinton and other women have pleaded with the authorities on college campuses and in workplaces to take any allegation of sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously, such a campaign to attack the women's [[character]] would be unacceptable.}}
But such a public campaign of abuse and ridicule of the victim ''was'' acceptable under the Clintons, by Clinton media and [[Hollywood]] surrogates. And virtually all historical and inside eyewitness accounts, dating back to Arkansas and the White House years, point to Hillary Clinton as the source who made it a mission.

===Intimidation and blackmail===
{{Cquote|When Hillary hired this fleet of detectives to go around examining all of the woman who had been identified with Clinton. Not for the purpose of divorcing Clinton. Not for the purpose of getting him to stop, but for the purpose of developing blackmail material on these women to cow them into silence that had a [[Nixon]]ian quality that I hold against her and I continue to.|20px|20px|[[Dick Morris]]<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/10/31/dick-morris-i-left-when-hillary-hired-secret-police-to-go-after-woman-victimized-by-bill/ Dick Morris: I Left When Hillary Hired Secret Police to Go After Woman Victimized by Bill], by [[Breitbart.com]], 31 Oct 2014.</ref>}}
One of the more abhorrent aspects of Hillary Clinton's personality is a well documented pattern by multiple Clinton confidants and advisors of intimidation and blackmail toward female victims of Mr. Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. Mrs. Clinton is accredited with introducing the [[sexist]] [[pejorative]], 'bimbo', into the American political [[lexicon]] to disparage victims of sexual assault by the rich and powerful.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WiQRBN8igE Hillary Clinton calls Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims "Bimbo Eruptions"] youtube.com</ref> The politicalinsider.com identified the problem,
{{Quotebox|One of the most incredible things about Hillary Clinton running for President is that there is an extraordinary long list of scandals that younger voters have never heard of. Just trying to keep up with the multiple decades of corruption and criminal activity of Bill and Hillary Clinton which happened long before the recent email scandal is overwhelming.<ref>[http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-woman-who-was-sexually-assaulted-by-bill-clinton-drops-a-bomb-on-hillary-whoa/ A Woman Who Was Sexually Assaulted by Bill Clinton Drops a BOMB on Hillary], thepoliticalinsider.com</ref>}}
The ''New York Times'' noted before the 2016 [[primary election]] season began that the ''’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women'', and Hillary Clinton certainly was not, by any account, a victim, or a victim of her husband's faithlessness.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html ’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', JAN. 20, 2016.</ref>
In the recent book, ''The Clinton's War on Women'', the authors cite a [[Sociology|sociological]] phenomena known as [[elite deviance]] in a society where the elites no longer believe the rules apply to them and their behavior is justified and facilitated by a cadre of [[sycophant]]s, [[apologist]]s, supporters, and surrogates collectively known as the Clinton smear machine.<ref>http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-hillary-clinton-smear-machine/</ref><ref>''[http://greatbookcorner.com/data/thepopularbook.site/T/the-clintons-war-on-women-roger-stone--93pfuGF9wiHCc6-8BX16-8ZvB6-8AVI6d.pdf The Clinton's War on Women]'', pp. 16-17 pdf.</ref>

To locate, stalk, harass, and intimidate the women, Betsy Wright was put in charge of the operation. According to [[Carl Bernstein]], "Betsy's operation became known as 'The Defense Department', and Wright was sometimes known as the 'secretary of defense'"<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=KG8oDvWH3ZYC&pg=PT612&dq=Carl+Bernstein+betsey+wright+defense+department+clinton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x4RWU4edAcLjsATguYHYAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Carl%20Bernstein%20betsey%20wright%20defense%20department%20clinton&f=false A Woman in Charge], Carl Bernstein, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, Jun 5, 2007</ref> For this Jack Palladino, Terry Lenzner, Ivan Duda, Jerry Parks,<ref>http://bonedjello.com/Articles/The%20Murder%20of%20Jerry%20Parks.html</ref> Anthony Pellicano, and others were employed.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31278/ The real story behind the Clinton body count], ''[[WorldNetDaily]]'', 07/13/2005. Review of Richard Poe’s, ''Hillary’s Secret War.'' wnd.com</ref><ref>[http://alamo-girl.com/02742.htm PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES], SECTION: SECRET POLICE, Revised 8/10/00. http://alamo-girl.com</ref><ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/foster.html Reports Tie Clinton Sexcapades to Foster's Death]. mega.nu</ref>

To silence the women, all sorts of threats and intimidation were common, such as murdering the family pet on the doorstep or blatant threats against the lives of their children.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1v5e4lZiS08C&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=pellicano%2Bhillary&source=bl&ots=2QSRhFU8QY&sig=zFCzv6MqE1JDMGwraPnD1XL3TB8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyuqCkgYDNAhVLz2MKHdJwA9AQ6AEI3AEwIg#v=onepage&q=pellicano%2Bhillary&f=false Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, WND Books, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44416/ PI 'admits' Hillary paid him to harass Willey], WND, 11/07/2007.</ref> [[Pornographer]] impresario [[Larry Flynt]] was called to boot a $1,000,000 reward to anybody to come forward with sexual innuendo, whether true or not, to attack Clinton's enemies with.<ref>[http://observer.com/2000/08/its-poker-night-with-larry-flynt-porn-king-discourses-on-sex-gore/ It’s Poker Night With Larry Flynt! Porn King Discourses on Sex, Gore], By Andrew Goldman, ''New York Observer'', 08/28/00</ref>
====Sexual blackmail of political opponents====
Hillary's obsession with sexual blackmail isn't limited to compromising and silencing disgruntled mistresses or women Bill Clinton assaulted, it became a ready tool against political opponents as well. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an obsession with opposition research and digging up dirt on opponents.<ref>https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-already-knows-the-bad-thing-you-said?utm_term=.ry2yGw3Go#.of4rD4yDJ</ref> As Hillary's emails reveal, she often spent more time studying domestic critics views of her activities than the actual job of secretary of state. A new generation of millennials is becoming familiar with the term, "oppo", which is the first step in blackmailing and silencing media critics or candidates for public office. The Clintons have raised it from muckraking and [[dirty tricks]] to a high art form.

To political opponents and the women, Clinton surrogates routinely use the material, truth not being a factor, dug up by Hillary's investigator's to slime anyone publicly who wouldn't fall into line. A recent lawsuit filed just days after it became evident Trump was considering using the case of Joe Epstein in the election is intended to neutralize criticism.<ref>https://youtu.be/EPlDvVwER7A</ref> And the surrogates relish their jobs. Indeed, many Clinton supporters believe this is the essence of [[politics]] — slander, defamation, and demonization of living human beings — not formulation or discussion of public policy.

In what perhaps may or may not be a [[Freud]]ian slip Hillary Clinton titled her last book, ''Hard Choices''.

===Rape allegations===
====as Arkansas Attorney General====
The general pattern of the Clinton's being above the law is illustrated the Juanita Broadderick case from 1978.

Rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media. In an interview with ''Dateline NBC,'' that aired after the impeachment trial, Broaddrick claimed she had indeed been [[rape]]d by then Arkansas [[Attorney General]] Bill Clinton.<ref name="NBCinterview">''Dateline NBC'': February 24, 1999. ''The Washington Post'' [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm published a story about the interview] on February 25, 1999.</ref> The abuse put Broadderick in a quandry: who could she turn for help in a case against the state's highest ranking [[law enforcement]] official?

Broaddrick first met Clinton when he made a visit to her nursing home during his first gubernatorial bid. Broaddrick offered to volunteer for the campaign, and Clinton invited her to stop by the campaign office in Little Rock.<ref name=NYT>''New York Times'': [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/24/us/on-tortuous-route-sexual-assault-accusation-against-clinton-resurfaces.html On Tortuous Route, Sexual Assault Accusation Against Clinton Resurfaces]. February 24, 1999.</ref> She contacted the office a few weeks later when she was in Little Rock for a nursing home conference. Clinton said he would not be in the office that day and suggested they meet at her hotel’s coffee shop instead. Upon his arrival, however, he allegedly requested that they instead have coffee in her room to avoid a crowd of reporters in the lobby. Broaddrick agreed.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says the two spoke briefly in her room, then Clinton suddenly kissed her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick pushed Clinton away and told him she was married and not interested, but he persisted. As recounted in the NBC interview:<ref name="NBCinterview" />
{{quotebox|"Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.” }}
When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said “No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rodgers. Rodgers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."<ref name="NYT" /> Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick says she did not tell her then-husband about the incident.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name=Slate>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html "Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?"]. ''Slate'' (magazine)''. March 3, 1999.</ref>

At the time, she was having an affair with her eventual second husband, David Broaddrick. He remembers her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Broaddrick recalled incident occurred in the spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.<ref name="NBCinterview" /><ref name="Slate" /> The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton's official schedule for the date,<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999 /> but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Three weeks later Broaddrick attended an event where the Clintons would be in attendance at the home of a local dentist.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> Broaddrick said she was “in denial,” and felt guilty, thinking that she had given Clinton the wrong idea by letting him into her room.<ref name="NBCinterview" /> When she arrived she says, her friend who had picked the Clintons up from the airport told her that Hillary Clinton had asked if she would be at the event.<ref name=FOXinterview>''FOX News'': Interview with Sean Hannity. June 10, 2003. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 Excerpt] available via YouTube.</ref> Broaddrick says Clinton did not speak to her at the event, but his wife Hillary approached her, took her hand, and said 'I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.”<ref name="FOXinterview" /> When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Mrs. Clinton held on to her and said, "Do you understand? Everything that you do."<ref name="FOXinterview" /> Broaddrick says she felt [[nausea]]ted and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Mrs. Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet.<ref name="FOXinterview" />

In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much."<ref name=WSJ>''Wall Street Journal'': [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB919379691540145000.html Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press]. February 19, 1999.</ref> Broaddrick said that in 1991, Clinton called her out of a state nursing standards meeting to try to apologize. In response to his apologies, as she told ''[[The Washington Post]]'', "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".<ref name=WashingtonPost-Feb25-1999>Kurtz, Howard (February 25, 1999). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"]. ''[[Washington Post]]''. p. A15.</ref> Darden also attended the meeting, and said she saw Broaddrick talking to Clinton in the hallway.<ref name="NBCinterview" />

Lisa Myers if NBC, who conducted the ''Dateline'' interview, added she had no reason to doubt the veracity of Broadderick's accusations.

====as Rhodes Scholar====
An instance of media coverup, or failing to ask the right questions while promoting the Clintons and their careers is illustrated in Clinton's time at Oxford University.

The earliest known incident of a reported rape is from 1969 while at Oxford in England on the
[[Rhodes Scholar]]ship program. As is common knowledge, women's rights, [[prosecution]] of offenders, and protection for rape victims in 1969 were not what they are today.

The prestigious Rhodes Scholarship is an elite program intended to cement Anglo-American relations and train tomorrows world leaders. Clinton was recommended for the program in 1968 by his Georgetown Professor Carol Quigley and his political mentor, the notorious [[segregation]]ist Senator J. William Fulbright. It's a two-year program. Clinton received a draft deferment from conscription into the US Army during the Vietnam war for his enrollment in the program. It has been stated that 99% of all Rhodes Scholars graduate, the only cause of failing to graduate being death. Dropping out, or being thrown out, is/was virtuslly unheard of.

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who came forward saying Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near the University. A retired State Department employee confirmed that he spoke with the family. The employee said he believed the story of Miss Wellstone.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070516192906/http:/chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm]</ref>

"There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma, But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape." The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies. "I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study."<ref>http://albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm</ref>

The victim's family declined to pursue the case; Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-121742-7463r/?page=all |title=The missing Clinton women|author=The Washington Times | publisher= Washington Times |date= June 24, 2004}}</ref>

In his book, ''Unlimited Access'', former FBI agent [[Gary Aldrich]] reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster.

Having been thrown out of Oxford, Clinton lost his draft deferment. Clinton entered Oxford in October 1968, according to David Maraniss, and received a draft induction in late July 1969. Yet the focus of news reporting in the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 presidential election]] was on championing Clinton as a 'Rhodes Scholar' while never asking how it was possible for a Rhodes Scholar with a draft deferment to receive a draft notice. The issue focused on his failure to report for induction rather than the fact that he ''was not'' a Rhodes Scholar, that he had been thrown out of Oxford, or the reason for being thrown out.

====Other assaults====
Most cited by name in this section of assault victims are of women who have spoken about the crimes they've suffered, although some have been intimidated into silence after going public. Others remain fearful to come forward.

In 1972, a twenty-two-year-old woman told Yale University’s campus police that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, and although no charges were filed, a retired policeman confirmed the incident to ''Capitol Hill Blue''. The woman herself was also tracked down and confirmed it, though she elected to stay anonymous.

In 1974 a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference, groping her and forcing his hand inside her blouse. Although she complained to her faculty advisor, who confronted Clinton, the complaint again failed to go anywhere. The student left the school shortly after the incident, and more recently confirmed the incident. Several former students also confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and also said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students.

Arkansas state troopers assigned to protect Clinton have knowledge of at least seven other complaints from women who said Clinton forced himself on them sexually or attempted to do so.<ref>[http://www.shwiggie.com/articles/clintons.html Living with the Clintons, Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed], By David Brock, 1993</ref>

A Little Rock legal secretary named Carolyn Moffet claimed that in 1979, she met the governor at a political fundraiser and shortly afterward received an invitation to meet him in a hotel room. She was escorted there by a state trooper. When she arrived he was sitting on a couch wearing an undershirt and nothing else, and angrily assaulted her. She was able to escape before being raped. Moffet received threatening phone calls. “He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I’d forget that it ever happened...I haven’t forgotten it. You don’t forget crude men like that.”<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/</ref>

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982 told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-trashing-of-clintons-women-6422690</ref> Clinton media surrogates publicly hype and boast of Clinton's manliness and ''machismo'' for his sexual conquest if Miss America.

An Arkansas state employee named Paula Corbin filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after she said the governor exposed himself and demanded sex in a Little Rock hotel room. President Clinton finally settled the case with Paula Corbin in 1998 with an $850,000 cash payment.<ref>
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/18/jones/</ref>

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser said Clinton invited her to his hotel room when he was in Washington in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas state trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was alright. Then, she said, Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. ‘’My husband and children deserve better than that..I wasn’t raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man...I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn’t take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on.” She said she learned other women had similar stories during Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She has since married and left Washington and retreated from public view.<ref>http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/255828</ref>

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s campaign plane in 1992, reported that he exposed himself to her, groped her, and made explicit sexual remarks. A video filmed on board the plane by [[ABC News]] showed an obviously drunken Clinton with his hand on intimate parts of another young flight attendant. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.<ref>http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/12/29/millennials-guide-bill-clintons-20-sex-scandals/</ref>

Kathleen Willey was a volunteer at the White House when Clinton grabbed her, fondled her, and pressed her hand against himself during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a [[60 Minutes]] interview, became a target of a White House–directed smear campaign after she went public.<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/Target-Caught-Crosshairs-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0974670162 Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton], Kathleen Willey, World Ahead Publishing, Nov 6, 2007 ISBN 978-0974670164 ISBN 0974670162</ref> In 1998, just before Willey was to testify in the Paula Jones trial, Willey had a disturbing encounter where she was approached by a jogger near her home. The complete stranger asked her menacing questions about her children, naming them by name. According to Willey, "I'll never forget that look in his eyes . . . He just looked at me and he said, 'You're just not getting the message, are you?'" On Hardball in 1999, [[MSNBC]] host [[Chris Matthews]] identified the mysterious jogger as [[Cody Shearer]].<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-other-secret-dossier/article/2011477</ref>

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House and smesr machine.

Peter Baker in ''The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton'', which the ''Washington Post'' describes as the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that in the files of the independent prosecutor lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women. Baker noted
{{Quotebox|“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”<ref>[https://www.amazon.com/The-Breach-Inside-Impeachment-William/dp/1476730075 The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton], Peter Backer, December 4, 2012, p. 138</ref>}}

On November 21, 2014, columnist Joan Vennochi of the ''a [[Boston Globe]]'' wrote, “Rape allegations hurt Bill Cosby but sail past Bill Clinton.”

“Power—who has it, who doesn’t, and how it can for years insulate the holder of it—is the common thread between Cosby, Clinton, and their accusers,” Vennochi wrote. Clinton apologists, surrogates, sycophants, and spin-meisters srgur their public policies are more important than his private failings.

“Meanwhile, the Clinton spin machine did its best to portray his accusers as ‘nuts or sluts,’ ...against women who dare to hold men accountable for their actions,” Vennochi wrote.<ref>https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/21/rape-allegations-hurt-bill-cosby-but-sail-past-bill-clinton/YTIsUoXS2uxrW1mW2JSuRM/story.html</ref>

===Defends a pedophile===
The next job after the Children's Defense Fund the self described 'defender of children' handled was the case of a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl. The rapist, facing 30 years to life in prison, Hillary plea bargained down to time served - two months in county jail - by attacking the victim who was to young to testify in a court of law to defend herself.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/ AUDIO: Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes], Washington Free Beacon Staff, June 15, 2014. freebeacon.com</ref>

In court documents Hillary wrote to the judge about the young victim as:
{{Cquote|emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing...children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.<ref>[https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/ Video: Hillary Clinton brags about getting a pedophile off the hook], By Brandon Turbeville, January 25, 2016. www.intellihub.com</ref>}}
In 2006 the victim, now an adult heard for the first time Hillary Clinton laughing about her victory in the case. The victim spoke out,
{{Cquote|Hillary Clinton took me through hell. ...You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing. ... she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good...<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html She Lied: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says], Josh Rogan, ''The Daily Beast'', 06.20.14.</ref> }}

Mrs. Clinton knew the child rapist to be guilty, and joked about it. Clinton mainstream surrogates, apologists, and sycophants [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin%20control spin] the episode to prove how 'tough minded', 'dedicated, and 'fair' she is.

In 2014 Hillary Clinton again lied about the case claiming she asked to be relieved.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/ Politifact: Did Hillary Clinton ask to be 'relieved' from representing an accused rapist in 1970s?], By Steve Contorno, July 17th, 2014. politifact.com</ref>

===Joe Epstein===
When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Bill became a friend and business associate with a character known in the media as 'the billionaire pervert'. His new friend is involved in a child sex trafficking ring. He is a registered sex offender for sex crimes involving children.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/02/28/jeffrey-epstein-sex-offender-yes-billionaire-no/#669f83922136</ref>

Clinton's [[pedophile]] friend and associate, Jeffrey 'Joe' Epstein, is a donor to the [[Clinton Foundation]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html</ref> He began making donations shortly after his arrest on child sex charges. Epstein received a relatively light sentence in view of the charges against him. Epstein has settled lawsuits with 33 of his child victims. Other suits are still pending.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html#ixzz3NysnRS27</ref> Epstein is said to have provided minor girls for Prince Andrew. When the Palm Beach Florida police seized Epstein's contact book,<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-and-jeffrey-epstein-9086711</ref> 21 different phone numbers and email addresses for Clinton machine operatives were discovered, including the personal cell number for Bill Clinton, and numbers for Bill's flunky Doug Band and Hillary's flunky Cheryl Mills.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/cheryl-mills-the-woman-who-knew-too-much/</ref>

Epstein owns property in Manhattan, Palm Beach and the Virgin Islands where the child molestation acts are said to have taken place.<ref>http://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/</ref> Seized flight logs in the investigation reveal Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane 18 times.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/18/morning_joe_panel_clintons_connection_to_billionaire_pedophile_jeffrey_epstein_will_blow_up_campaign.html]</ref> It has been established some of these flights were to Epstein's Virgin Islsnds retreat.<ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/judge-unseals-more-details-in-jeffrey-epstein-underage-sex-lawsuit-210065</ref> A woman who victims name as procurring underage girls is s donor to the Hiilary Clinton Presidential campaign and attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010.<ref>http://snn.bz/clinton-4ss/</ref>

In 2007 former Whitewater prosecutor [[Ken Starr]], whom critics accuse of whitewashing the Vince Foster investigation,<ref>http://www.prorev.com/knowl2a.htm</ref> defended Epstein from a second conviction of having sex with a 14 year old minor.<ref>http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/791-ken-starr-explains-his-help-for-billionaire-pervert-jeffrey-epstein</ref> Starr was forced out of his position as president of Baylor University in May 2016 for mishandling another sex scandal.

==Racism==
:''See also [[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign]]'' and ''[[Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism]]''
Bill and Hillary Clinton are known for there cynical manipulation of Black voters and pandering to "white working class, hard-working white" nativist sentiment.<ref>https://youtu.be/vjoMcqMTMfw</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/ijhL3-5sr18</ref> Reminiscent of her famous "bring them to heel" speech, while discussing police shootings [[Hillary Clinton]] said, "We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable" without bothering to explain what is inexplicable.

Hillary's racism runs deep. The night [[Bill Clinton]] lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974 and disappointing their immediate personel ambitions, Hillary blamed the loss on campaign manager Paul Fray. "She called me everything but a white man," Fray explained to the [[BBC]].<ref>https://youtu.be/_VonG4TyTWw</ref> Tensions escalated. Then she called him a "F***ing [[Jew]] bastard." The Cinton's of course deny it but five separate surving witnesses corroborate each other in detail.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/three-eyewitnesses-allege-hillary-called-aide-a-fking-jew-bastard/</ref><ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime">[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000.</ref> The incident was first reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''.<ref name="Did Hillary commit a hate crime"/><ref>http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

===The New Jim Crow===
Under the Clintons, more the 250,000 [[African American]]s were imprisoned in the [[United States]] than under President Reagan,<ref>http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=320</ref> a fact for which she takes credit for.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/</ref> Cumulatively since the Clinton's passed their crime bill, 2.5 million adult black males—more than 10% of the population—have been incarcerated leaving untold damage on black families.<ref>http://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/incarceration_rates_growth_causes/</ref>

Hillary's divisiveness and hate is targeted at a diverse group of people.<ref>https://youtu.be/yu9OH_KfPXA</ref> Hillary has publicly advocated treating minority youth like dogs,<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSDqbot-EI Hillary Clinton on "Superpredators"], Mrs. Clinton Campaign Speech Keene State University, January 25, 1996. youtube.com</ref> has made mocking and offensive comments about [[Jews]] and retarded children, and has called common American [[citizen]]s deplorables.<ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/clinton-and-doeplorables-her-comments-about-trump-voters-her-fellow-americans-show-why-she</ref> These sentiments have been confirmed by Hillary's campaign chair, Mr. John Podesta, and her campaign manager, [[Robby Mook]]. According to all major, reputable sources, [[Hillary Clinton]] and/or her organization and its surrogates started the [[birther movement]] to discredit Obama.<ref>://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> Her declining health and criminal investigation became an issue in her 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://youtu.be/Zr1IDQ2V1eM Hillary Clinton's Illness Revealed], Dr. Ted Noel, VidZette.com, Aug. 29, 2016. youtube.com</ref>

===Jesse Jackson===
The Clintons call [[Jesse Jackson]] that "Goddamn n****r" behind his back.<ref>http://polidics.com/news/hillary-clintons-jew-bastard.html</ref><ref>http://rapmusic.com/threads/hillary-clinton-hates-blacks-and-jews-caught-by-the-secret-service-and-endorsers.1074368/</ref><ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com">https://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/the-clintons-jews-and-niggers-warning-graphic-language/</ref><ref>http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/racial-slurs-are-unsettling-if-used-by-celebrity-chefs-or-top-democrats/</ref> Jackson refused to release his delegates in 1984 to [[Gary Hart]], Clinton's old boss from the [[McGovern]] campaign of 1972. Jackson, the first African-American to win states in a major party primary, questioned the disparity between his vote total and delegate count, but even Hart sided with the DNC's rigging the primary rules.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/20/us/disparity-between-jackson-s-vote-and-delegate-count-vexes-party.html?pagewanted=all DISPARITY BETWEEN JACKSON'S VOTE AND DELEGATE COUNT VEXES PARTY], By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, ''New York Times'', May 20, 1984.</ref> In 1988 Jackson selected Ron Brown as his chief negotiator at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.<ref>https://socialistworker.org/2016/07/25/how-democrats-got-over-the-rainbow</ref> Brown went on to serve as DNC Chairman and Commerce Secretary until he died in a plane crash.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Ron-Browns-Body-Presidency-Hillarys/dp/0785262377</ref>

===Democratic Leadership Council===
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a racist organization formed by remnants of the McGovern and Hart campaigns - less the Rainbow Coalition.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html</ref><ref>https://ofamerica.wordpress.com/tag/democratic-leadership-council/</ref> By 1992 it had taken over the DNC. Democratic strategists sought to distance themselves from the civil rights movement and begin pushing the "centrist" candidacy of Bill Clinton.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan 31, 2016</ref>

That fact that 30 year old allegations of sexual asssult and improprieties are hurled at [[Bill Cosby]] with a devastating effect on his life and career while Bill Clinton is held up as a paragon of manhood and public service by the media and judicial system is a testament of the bigotry and racism of the mainstream media and their supporters. Rumors persist that the Clinton's have effectively blackmailed Barack Obama to drop thd email investigation and for his active support in the 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/</ref>

===Voting rights violations===
In Arkansas, the Clinton administration was sued several times by blacks and [[Hispanic]]s for violations of the 1965 [[Voting Rights Act]] and lost every case. 10 years into their grip on Arkansas the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled
{{Quotebox|violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas.

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the [[plurality]] system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory...

This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.<ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref><ref>http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2016/09/bill-clintons-comment-about-trumps-make.html</ref>}}

In more than one thousand legislative elections, the Arkansas delta region sent not one black to the legislature. In 1988 the federal district court forced a change to the system in Crittenden County that watered down the presence of a large number of black voters.

The case began when blacks in Crittenden County filed a voting rights lawsuit attacking the county's ''at-large'' system for electing two members to the Arkansas House. The suit contended that the system deprived black voters of a chance to elect a black to the state assembly.

The evidence at trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated. Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates, other official acts that made voting harder for blacks. A panel of 3 judges ordered Clinton, the Attorney General, and Secretary of State to redraw the boundaries to give maximum strength to black voters.

Local press reports in Arkansas from the late 1980s paint an ugly picture of the [[Clinton administration]]'s attempts to intimidate black voters.<ref>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?subjectid=28880&msgid=18476315</ref> In her 1998 memoir ''Lift Every Voice'', former [[U.S Justice Department]] Civil Rights Division nominee Lani Guinier revealed that Clinton's record on [[race]] in Arkansas was so bad she was forced to take legal action. "As a staff lawyer for the [[NAACP]] Legal Defense and Education Fund [LDF], I had sued Gov. Clinton over Arkansas's deputy voter registration statute." A deputy voter registrar is someone authorized to register voters.

Guinier wrote, "In the late 1980s, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas - a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day," Dayna Cunningham, a civil rights lawyer, "were one of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious LDF voting rights suit. The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge...Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, 'We have to pay because we lost,'" the inference being the loss of the [[Civil War]] as well as the Clintons loss in the Supreme Court.

"Clinton had irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency," said Cunningham.

No good deed goes unpunished of course, so Guinier was not without her own problems for having unfortunately crossed paths with the Clintons, beginning at Yale. Three years after the ruckus in Arkansas President Clinton nominated her as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights. But the Clinton surrogates were lying in wait for her. A media smear campaign not only distorted her views, but in many cases presented them as the exact opposite. The ''New York Times'', which ordinarily presents the Clintons as the wonders of an age, ran an op-ed highly critical of Clinton's appointment, alleging Guinier was in favor of “[[segregation|segregating]] black voters in black-majority districts.” The ''Washington Post'', again no friend of conservatives, twisted Guiniers advocacy of proportional representation into a vision of “a society in which a minority can impose its will on the majority.”

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting says of the ambush and firestorm that surrounded Guinier's nomination:
{{Quotebox|there was also an ideological agenda at work: promoting Clinton’s media-celebrated shift “back to the center.” ... To make her a proper sacrificial offering, however, the establishment media had to reinvent Guinier — transforming a sophisticated advocate of racial reconciliation and participatory democracy into a sinister, [[race baiting|race-baiting]] enemy of the American Way.<ref>http://fair.org/extra/lani-guinier/</ref>}}

The Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the presidency. Guinier's nomination, if the Clintons were serious about it should have been easy. She had been Hillary snd Bill's classmate at Yale. It was classic ''Clintonism'': destroying the life of a friend and who was an advocate of racial reconciliation, painting the American people as racist, and promoting themselves. [[George Will]], it has been said, was too stupid and too lazy to actually read her writtings. As [[Mike Klonsky]] noted, when the liberal lions of the Democratically controlled Senate, such as [[Ted Kennedy]] and even [[Carole Moseley Braun]] stepped away, now the Clintons could turn a message of reconciliation into repudiation in front of the whole nation.

What's a little misunderstanding among friends? Guinier said she felt betrayed by Clinton, whom she considered a friend since their days together at Yale Law School, and was angered when he called her "anti-democratic," - the person who protected voting rights of African-Americans despite Clinton's fight against it - in a nationally televised address announcing he was scuttling her nomination.<ref>https://www.c-span.org/video/?42098-1/assistant-attorney-general-nomination</ref>

===Rep. Ben McGee===
In 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Clinton wrongfully tried to overturn the election of a black state representative, Mr. Ben McGee, and replace him with a white Democrat Clinton handpicked. The case grew out of the suit against Clinton to win voting rights for the people of Crittenden County.

===Robert 'Say' MacIntosh===
Robert 'Say' MacIntosh is a civil rights activist who the ''Arkansas Democrat'' newspaper named Arkansan of the Year in the late 1970s for his charitable work with children in Little Rock's housing projects.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080926012344/http://www.cals.lib.ar.us/butlercenter/manuscripts/collection/mss97-43.html]</ref> MacIntosh unsuccessfully ran for public office under Arkansas's racial gerrymanderring and minority voter suppression laws of the Clinton era, including as Lieutant Governor in 1980. He considered challenging Bill Clinton in the 1986 Democratic gubernatorial primary, but backed out when another African-American candidate, former anti-poverty agency head W. Dean Goldsby, filed on the last day.

A tree was ceremoniously planted on the Arkansas capitol grounds in the Clinton years on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to honor Dr. King. McIntosh showed up the next day and chopped it down in front of the press, and commented, "No black man was invited to be present for the tree planting. I'm cutting it down till blacks are invited to be part of the political process in Little Rock." Wikipedia says "few debate that he has been a major part of local color in Arkansas."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_"Say"_McIntosh</ref>

MacIntosh publicized allegations Bill Clinton fathered an out of wedlock child named Danney Williams.<ref>https://twitter.com/danney_williams?s=09</ref> When Bill Clinton was in Little Rock, McIntosh would distribute leaflets within a five block area to raise money for the child's upbringing. He had frequent face-to-face confrontations with Gov. Clinton over child support. Clinton privately referred to MacIntosh with aides using the "n" word.<ref name="emptysuit.wordpress.com"/>

The story resurfaced during the 2008 primaries, only this time the denials weren't so strong and adopted a more forgiving attitude.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/sex-lies-and-major-headlines</ref><ref>http://epubbookonline.com/b/3035/roger-stone/the-clintons-war-on-women/27</ref> Many blacks and Obama supporters were put off by the mainstresm media spin and questioned the untimely death of Ron Brown.<ref>http://wc.blackplanet.com/news/article_comments.html?news_item_id=46467</ref><ref>http://aapoliticalpundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/blacks-clintons-presidency-and-ron.html</ref> Even the ''Washington Post'' noticed the racial undercurrent in Hillary Clinton's campaign.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201762.html</ref>

===Ron Brown===
The death of Ron Brown remains a contoversial subject among African-Americans.<ref>https://youtu.be/BMXnPYGDgVc</ref> Ron Brown was the first black [[Secretary of Commerce]] who died in the crash of Air Force Two. The crash occurred one week before Brown was slated to give testimony in the Clinton campaign finance scandal, among other scandals.<ref>https://youtu.be/HR-WkSEzaho</ref>

===Confederate Flag Day===
The Arkansas Legislature's Act 116 of 1987 designated the star above the word "Arkansas" on the state flag as a commemoration of the Confederacy, signed into law by Gov. Clinton, as well as annual proclamations for Confederate Flag Day.

In April 1985 Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. and [[Robert E. Lee]], General of the Confederate army, state holidays on the same day. The coded message sent to white constituents could not have be clearer.

===Black lives don't matter===
On the eve of the [[New Hampshire]] primary in 1992, Bill Clinton took off from the campaign trail to sign the death warrant and oversee the execution of a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector. Recktor, who had been lobotomized, was mentally incompetent and unable to understand the charges against him.
<ref>[https://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-hitchens/ Christopher Hitchens], Skeptical Brotha. Retrieved 23 June 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.blackstarnews.com/us-politics/elections/bill-clinton-hopped-up-on-whack-ricky-ray-rector-part-2.html Bill Clinton "Hopped Up On Whack" -- Ricky Ray Rector Part 2], Colin Benjamin, Black Star News, April 13, 2016</ref> "It was like executing a child," the prison chaplain said. Hillary, the master strategist of the Clinton's rise, fearing the Willie Horton syndrome which torpedoed [[Michael Dukakis]] in 1988 and the 'monkey business' which destroyed [[Gary Hart]] as well, still defended the execution in 2016.<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clintons-indefensible-stance-on-the-death-penalty/ Hillary Clinton’s Indefensible Stance on the Death Penalty], Liliana Segura, ''The Intercept'', Mar. 17 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ Jan 31, 2016 04:00 AM MDT The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan. 31, 2016</ref>

Hillary was at his side when Bill Clinton raised mandatory sentencing guidelines which disproportionately sent Blacks to prison, giving the United States the highest mass incarceration rate in the world.<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter], By Donna Murch, ''The New Republic'', February 9, 2016</ref> The Clinton's championed the “three strikes you're out” law, passed a crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for more state prisons. By the time the Clinton's left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote], Michelle Alexander, ''The Nation'', February 10, 2016</ref>

In late 2015, while several American cities smoldered in riots over police shootings, Hillary Clinton had several prison industry lobbyists working as fundraisers on her campaign. The fundraiser-lobbyists worked for the Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, which also run most of the [[immigrant]] detention centers.<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/while-missouri-students-battle-racism-prison-lobbyists-funded-hillary-clintons-campaign_b_8553370.html While Missouri Students Battle Racism, Prison Lobbyists Funded Hillary Clinton’s Campaign], H.A. Goodman, ''Huffington Post'', Nov 13, 2015</ref>

===Racial profiling Hispanics===
The Clintons instituted [[racial profiling]] of [[Latino]]s as drug dealers in 1988. Specifically, the troopers were authorized to stop and search cars driven by Hispanics, especially those with Texas license plates. Again, the Clinton's Criminal Apprehension Program was challenged in federal court and ruled unconstitutional. But the program went on anyway with further destruction of civil liberties when the Clinton's authorized state troopers to stop and search any car regardless of race.<ref>https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56765970.html</ref>

Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, cited the fact that Clinton was "a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics," and thst they do not have "the moral authority to lead a national campaign on this issue." The Clintons need to "apologize to all those Hispanics who suffered this 'morally indefensible' practice".

===Naked racism===
A Black Lives Matter activist confront Hillary Clinton in 2016 about the Clinton's history of [[racism]].<ref>[http://fair.org/home/why-did-it-take-an-activist-to-bring-superpredators-into-the-campaign/ Why Did It Take an Activist to Bring ‘Superpredators’ Into the Campaign?], By Jim Naureckas, FAIR, 27 Feb 2016</ref> In January 2016 ''[[Salon]]'' published an article on the dirty little secret among the liberal intelligentsia no one wants to talk about: the Clinton's rise and success has been based on stoking racial fears. Stan Greenberg conducted the focus groups that dictated the Clinton's daily buzzwords and talking points to provide the fodder and fuel the Clinton's lived and died on. Greenberg's work produced results claiming the Democratic party was too identified with [[Jesse Jackson]] and minorities to speak for 'average Americans' and it needed to appeal to white working class swing voters.<ref>[http://prospect.org/article/crisis-working-majority-0 From Crisis to Working Majority], Stan Greenberg, ''The American Prospect'' 2, no. 7 (September 1991). Republished 24 May 2005</ref>

Perhaps nothing reveals the cold, cruel, calculated and hateful divisiveness in the heart of the woman than her comment to Sam Donaldson on ABC's ''Prime Time Live'' that Gennifer Flowers was the daughter of Willie Horton. Intended as a throwaway line, with all the facts in now - that it was a lie and she knew it was a lie - we see the cynical manipulation of people, particularly those in the civil rights and women's movements, and her incipient predations.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1j6Xy5FnBzkC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=gennifer+flowers+is+the+daughter+of+willie+horton&source=bl&ots=LIylbGcmHA&sig=35GnRjdcZx32qV_stExpcJV0PFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPgdST5s3NAhUIKGMKHfDfCOgQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=gennifer%20flowers%20is%20the%20daughter%20of%20willie%20horton&f=false The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse], Colleen E. Kelley, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, pp. 268-269</ref>

In 1992 for the first time in nearly half a century the party platform made no mention of redressing racial injustice. Through triangulation and a policy of 'get tuff on crime', the Clinton's sought to repudiate and distance themselves from the Democratic party's commitment to the struggles of [[African-American]]s. The Clinton's formulated a crime bill purportedly to 'put 100,000 new cops on the street'. Hillary became one of the chief spokespersons referring to black teens as dogs.
{{Cquote|They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-slams-clintons-racist-1996-super-predators-comment/ Bernie Sanders slams Clinton's "racist" 1996 super predators comment], By Reena Flores, CBS News, April 14, 2016</ref><ref>[http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/ Superscapegoating], Teen 'superpredators' hype set stage for draconian legislation, By Robin Templeton, FAIR, 1 Jan 1998</ref>}}
In the 2008 presidential primaries, the Clinton's were back at it: fostering racial fear and paranoia,<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008</ref> which by now seemed to be the regular program of the Democratic Leadership Council.<ref>[http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover.html Muzzling The African-American Agenda With Black Help], Bruce A. Dixon, ''The Black Commentator''. www.blackcommentator.com</ref> They tried to marginalize Obama as the black candidate with comparisons to Jesse Jackson<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-jus_n_83406.html Bill Clinton: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson], ''Huffington Post'', 03/28/2008</ref> emphasizing Hillary's 'wide appeal': "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", Hillary told ''USA Today''.<ref>[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm Clinton makes case for wide appeal], By Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY, 5/8/2008</ref> She mocked and ridiculed Obama's fitness to lead on his no first strike nuclear pledge saying, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," whereas two months earlier she promised to nuke Iran. She stayed in the race even after it became apparent she lost, according to her, only because Obama might be assassinated.

As heir to the [[New Deal]] tradition and key to the New England donor base, Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s blessing on the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was vital. The Clinton's also were seeking bona fides among liberals and the [[civil rights]] movement. Clinton said of Obama, "that boy would have been carrying our bags and getting us coffee a few years ago".<ref>[http://urbanintellectuals.com/2015/07/17/did-you-know-bill-clinton-made-racist-comments-about-barack-obama-when-he-first-ran-for-president/ Did You Know Bill Clinton Made Racist Comments About Barack Obama When He First Ran For President], F. Taylor, Urban Intellectuals, July 17, 2015.</ref> Kennedy was offended by Clinton's racism and refused to give Hillary the endorsement.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/28/hillaryclinton.usa Hillary has cynically turned to the one argument she has left: race], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.alternet.org/story/80258/america's_new_racial_reality%3A_white_minority_status America's New Racial Reality: White Minority Status], While Obama raises the bar for racial understanding, the Democratic Leadership Council leverages white voter fear. By Roberto Lovato / New America Media, March 21, 2008.</ref>

===Haitian abductions===
:''See: [[Pizzagate]]''
In 2010, Bill Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, worked for the release of 10 adults who had been arrested transporting 33 [[Haiti]]an children abducted from their families across the border to the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>https://youtu.be/vzVAcn1YkcY</ref>

===African sex slaves===
Again, this advocate of women and children's rights was asked repeatedly in 2011 to designate [[Boko Haram]] as a terrorist organization after the group bombed the [[United Nations]] headquarters in Abuja. Secretary Clinton's State Department refused, despite requests coming from the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, the [[CIA]], and numerous Senators and Congressmen.<ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-dropped-ball-boko-haram-020300046--politics.html?ref=gs Hillary Dropped the Ball on Boko Haram], Josh Rogin, [The Daily Beast], May 7, 2014. www.yahoo.com</ref> In May 2012, Justice Department official Lisa Monaco wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al Qaeda in the Maghreb (al Qaeda in North Africa) and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?] Hot Air website.</ref>

The American counterterrorism agencies were asking for the legal authority to begin countering Boko Haram. Boko Haram is now an Islamic State province but at the time it held allegiance to al Qaeda. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at the behest of French and British [[corporate]] interests was in negotiation with several al Qaeda affiliates - [[al Qaeda in the Maghreb]], the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]], and Ansar al Shariah - to destabilize Muammar Gaddafi in Libya at the time and didn't want to antagonize or alienate her allies.

In early 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 teenage schoolgirls, most of whom were Black, and announced its intention to sell them as [[marital]] [[sex]] [[slave]]s.<ref>http://www.theledger.com/opinion/20160927/letter-for-hillary-money-matters-more</ref>

===Birth of the birther movement===
:''See [[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]''
Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign team began spreading [[Islamophobic]] rumors that Obama was a Muslim schooled in a ''madrassa'' as a child in Indonesia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/bill-clinton-barack-obama-bromance-long-slow-making Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: an alliance long and slow in the making], Gary Younge, ''Guardian'' UK.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080506093354/http://www.stop-obama.org/?page_id=23 Who is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?] Mission Statement, stop-obama.org</ref> Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, working through his son, Max Blumenthal, was the origin of the rumors that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim in order to stir up fear among the electorate which was intended to discredit Obama and work to Hillary's benefit.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-islamophobic-crusade/ The Great Islamophobic Crusade], CBSNEWS, December 19, 2010. cbsnews.com</ref>

It began with People United Means Action (PUMA), a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who not only opposed Barack Obama's nomination, but then went on to oppose his Presidency.<ref>https://youtu.be/bifsEkjTAc8</ref> PUMA members pointed to charges that the media directed sexism and misogyny at Clinton during the primary campaign and expressed anger at Democratic Party leaders' failure to speak out against that or otherwise respond appropriately.

===Political Correctness summit gaffe===
During a political correctness summit, where she acted as a keynote speaker, she let her views on blacks out publicly where she stated that "all [blacks] look alike [to her]."<ref>https://www.teaparty.org/hillary-clinton-says-blacks-look-alike-political-correctness-summit-330890/</ref>

== U.S. Senate ==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Senate career]]''
===FALN===
In preparation for her Senate bid, Bill Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group <ref>Multiple references:
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080501015940/http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf "Coddling terrorists?"] (September 21, 1999). Senate Republican Policy Committee. Retrieved from May 1, 2008 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (September 15, 1999). [http://web.archive.org/web/20000416225221/https://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm "Witness list (and transcribed statements): Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 'Clemency for FALN Members'"]. U.S. Senate website/Committee on the Judiciary. Retrieved from April 16, 2000 archive at Internet Archive.
*U.S. Senate, 106th Congress (September 14, 1999). [http://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/33 "S.J. Res. 106-33: A joint resolution deploring the actions of President Clinton regarding granting clemency to FALN terrorists."] U.S. Congress website/Legislation/106th Congress/Senate joint resolutions. Passed 95-2.</ref> to curry favor with [[radical]] [[Puerto Rican]] voters among the New York electorate.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm "FALN clemency and NY Senate race"] (1999-2009). Justice for Jonathan Pollard website.</ref> The FALN bombed the historic Fraunces Tavern in [[Manhattan]], killing four people in 1975. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm "Clinton pardons terror"] (August 13, 1999). ''New York Post''. Reprinted at Latin American Studies website.</ref>

===Illegal fundraising, 2000===
In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions.<ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html "Press release, Matter under review 5225"] (January 26, 2006). Federal Election Commission website.</ref>
===Illegal fundraising, 2007===
Norman Hsu was a 'HillRaiser', someone who brought in more than $860,000 for her 2008 presidential campaign, and co-hosted a $1 million fundraiser in Beverly Hills. Hsu had been convicted of defrauding investors of over $1 million in 1992 and had a fugitive warrant out for over 15 years at the time. Hillary had been warned about the source of the contributions earlier, but only returned the money after the scandal became public.

==Secretary of State==
:''Main article [[Hillary Clinton Secretary of State]]
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject commercial arms sales to foreign governments based upon a broad range of reasons, from [[national security]] considerations to [[human rights]] concerns. This often brought her into a [[legal]] and [[ethical]] [[conflict of interest]] with donors to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]] has also criticized the foreign corporations that donate cash to the Clinton Foundation, citing "a French company", the Veolia Group, "that sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.” Veolia contributed between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Warren criticized Philip Morris, part of the Altria group, another Clinton Foundation donor. And “a Swedish company", Vattenfall, a state-owned Swedish utility; the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency has contributed between $1 million and $10 million.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-targets-clinton-foundation-donors/ Elizabeth Warren Targets Clinton Foundation Donors], Brent Scher, May 8, 2015. freebeacon.com</ref>

She was a staunch advocate of American boots on the ground in [[Syria]] and [[Libya]].<ref>https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-war-risk-of-hillary-clinton/</ref> She has promised, if elected President, greater intervention,<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/time-delay-over-hillary-clinton-outlines-plan-combat-isis-n466346</ref> and the use of nuclear weapons against [[Iran]] if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack against [[Israel]].<ref>https://youtu.be/857guwaNbRc</ref>

Clinton later admitted to having emailed over 100 government officials, including President Obama, through her personal email account.<ref>Klein, Aaron (September 13, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/hillary-clinton-admits-emailed-100-government-employees-private-server/ Hillary Clinton Admits She Emailed Over 100 Government Employees from Private Server]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 14, 2017.</ref>

===The Hillary Clinton Doctrine of smart power===
:''High tech surveillance, blackmail, and violations of international law.''
After being rejected for the top leadership of her party in 2008, the 62-year-old Clinton tenaciously held onto a quest for power, releasing her convention delegates and being granted the position of Secretary of State. Neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or George W. Bush were particularly qualified in the area of foreign affairs, but in the Democratic party a resume that includes reforming Arkansas public schools, receiving an appointment based on [[nepotism]] to squander tens of millions of dollars for a federal healthcare study program that never took shape, or serving as a non-distinct Senator with no tangible accomplishments qualifies a person to hold a high level position in a time of international crisis that neither they, nor their boss, understand anything about.

'Don't do stupid stuff' was President Obama's instructions to Hillary, the mantra being that George W. Bush was 'stupid', and therefore anything that departed from the policies of G.W. Bush was 'smart'. From this evolved Hillary's doctrine of 'smart power', overthrowing regimes with weapons supplied by donors to the Clinton Foundation without putting U.S. boots on the ground and unleashing millions of refugees worldwide.

All this 'smart power' needed a formal name; in recent decades several President's had 'doctrines' named after themselves - the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine; Bill Clinton was cheated, he never had any interest in foreign policy and little impact, so now it was time for a 'Clinton Doctrine', that is, the 'Hillary Clinton Doctrine' formulated by a Secretary of State that she could ride into the White House with. Thus began the quest to overthrow a U.S. ally as a favor to foreign donors to the Clintons. President Obama woke up too late to see how he had been used and manipulated to bring about a massive humanitarian crisis, and the damage Hillary Clinton's machinations have done to his presidency and legacy.

All in all, the team of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been a disaster for the world. Teaming up support for the 2016 Presidential election as loyal Democrats is a farce; they already are blaming each other for the hundreds of thousands dead, and the 2,000,000 refugees who have flooded across Europe just since 2014. And they most assuredly will continue to blame each other in their memoirs. A [[skeptic]] may say it doesn't matter, Middle Easterners don't vote in U.S. elections; but a skeptic might also have no problem voting for a leader with no [[conscience]]. The world is now in the midst of a serious displaced persons refugee crisis, the most serious since the end of [[World War II]] in 1945.

====Catastrophic aftermath====
[[File:Mass beheading of Christians in Libya.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary's War culminated in the creation of the [[Islamic State]] and mass beheading of [[Christian]]s.]]
Nuclear armed dictators such as [[Kim Jong-un]] witnessed how Gaddafi had been lied to and double-crossed by Secretary Clinton and her consortium.<ref>theatlantic.com"</ref> Decades of negotiation were lost with him, his father, and his grandfather, to persuade [[North Korea]] to give up its WMD, nukes and [[ballistic missile]] programs, return to the community of 'civilized nations', and to live in peace and harmony by accepting the word of the United States chief negotiator, the Secretary of State. When North Korea illegally tested an above-ground nuclear device in January 2016 it specifically cited the fate of Gaddafi as to why it needs a nuclear deterrent.<ref>telegraph.co.uk"</ref>

The brave new world Hillary built in Libya soon descended into chaos. The irascible [[jihad]]i elements Hillary and Obama supported turned their U.S. supplied weapons on American territory, the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary's 'moderate rebels' -- [[al-Qaeda in the Maghreb]] and the [[Libyan Islamic Fighting Group]]<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/benghazi-raid-libyan-revolution Benghazi raid leaves cradle of Libyan revolution fearing for its future] ''[[The Guardian]]'' September 21, 2012. "There was no demonstration. They came with machine guns, with rockets."</ref>—killed the American Ambassador reportedly in the same fashion Gaddafi had been murdered.<ref>[http://www.aina.org/news/20120913165253.htm Ambassador Stevens Was Raped Before His Murder, Reports Claim], 2012-09-13. www.aina.org</ref> All this was occurring on American soil only 56 days prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential election]] where the slogan was "[[Osama Bin Laden#Abbottabad raid|Bin Laden is dead]], [[Crony capitalism|GM is alive]], and al Qaeda is on the run." The deceptive narrative denying America had been attacked was issued by Hillary Clinton at nearly the precise time Ambassador [[Christopher Stevens]] was viciously murdered.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE Here's the KEY MOMENT in Benghazi hearings - Rep. Jordan nails Hillary on LIES], posted by [[Pamela Geller]], Oct 22, 2015. youtube.com</ref>

The Libyan fiasco stiffened the resolve of [[Vladimir Putin]]. Putin did not veto the U.N. Security Council which passed a 'fig leaf' resolution to give its proponents, Hillary Clinton, [[Nicolas Sarkozy#Libyan affair|Nicolas Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron]] and Barack Obama an air of legitimacy.<ref>[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/forgotten-war-understanding-incredible-debacle-left-behind-nato-libya.html Understanding The Incredible Debacle Left Behind By NATO In Libya], Posted on February 28, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog.</ref><ref>[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/ Hillary Clinton: the Queen of Chaos and the Threat of World War III], by Maidhc Ó Cathail – Diana Johnstone, March 10, 2016. www.counterpunch.org</ref> Amidst the ensuing chaos they began blaming each other. Once the duplicity and betrayal of the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton became obvious, Putin moved to shore up defense of his own allies - Russians residing in the [[Ukraine]] and [[Crimea]], and [[Syria]]n President [[Bashar al-Assad]].<ref>[http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603 Address by President of the Russian Federation], March 18, 2014. en.kremlin.ru</ref> Putin felt betrayed, the U.N. Security Council resolution was only to provide a no-fly zone aircover for the rebels, not an authorization for direct attacks and intervention against Gaddafi's forces as Putin had been assured beforehand.

===Iranian nuke deal===
The ''EU Times'' reported on 30 December 2012 Hillary Clinton had been injured in the crash landing of a C-12 Huron military aircraft 3 weeks prior in the city of Ahvaz,<ref>http://www.eutimes.net/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in-secret-us-mission-to-iran/</ref> Iran while on a secret mission in preparation of the Iranian nuclear deal and lifting sanctions.<ref>http://www.americannewsservice.org/search/label/Commander%20Job%20W.%20Price</ref> The report was ciculated among Hillary's staffers who joking referred to it as a conspiracy theory until Les Horn responded to Anthony Milavic on 3 January 2013,
{{Quotebox|Anthony -- FYI. The report appears to be credible. Les<ref>https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/9457</ref>}}
Reports say upon landing the plane encountered "extreme turbulence" causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed. Within seconds Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and "bleeding profusely."

The ''EU Times'' noted, "US media reports state that Secretary Clinton will return to work next week after her having suffered what they describe as a "nasty bout with stomach flu" and a "concussion" which have kept her missing from public view the past three weeks. The ''Debkafile'' confirmed these reports.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20130101003102/http://debka.com/article/22645/Hillary-Clinton-in-hospital-amid-speculation-of-plane-accident-in-Iran</ref>

===Boko Haram===
[[File:Nigerian girls.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Hillary Clinton did nothing to protect the lives and safety of 276 Christian girls kidnapped by [[Boko Haram]] and sold as sex slaves, despite multiple agency requests. The Obama administration furnished the same organization SAM-7 missiles capable of shooting down commercial and military aircraft.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/libyan-missiles-on-the-loose/2012/05/08/gIQA1FCUBU_story.html?utm_term=.a091217ed1fd Libyan missiles on the loose], By [[David Ignatius]], Washington Post Opinion writer, May 8, 2012</ref>]]
Hillary Clinton refused to place [[Boko Haram]] on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.<ref>Morrissey, Ed (May 8, 2014). [https://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/did-hillary-refuse-to-designate-boko-haram-as-a-terrorist-organization/ "Did Hillary refuse to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?"] Hot Air website.</ref> Placing Boko Haram on the State Department's terrorist list would then give legal authority to the CIA or FBI to act. At the time, Hillary was deeply involved in negotiations with and efforts to arm various Al Qaeda entities to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad.

Boko Haram, a terrorist group numbering 15,000 in three countries of West Africa, has murdered at least 20,000 people and displaced another 2.6 million. Boko Haram in 2011 was affiliated with [[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]; by 2017 it had the Islamic States' largest number of members.

In 2014 Boko Haram kidnapped 276 Black African Christian girls and has sold them into slavery, reports indicate.

===Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation===
Once Saddam Hussein fell in April 2003, the [[Bush administration]] hastily closed Prince Sultan Airbase ending a long term commitment to the defense of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/prince-sultan.htm Prince Sultan Air Base, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia]. globalsecurity.org</ref>

By the end of the decade the Clinton Foundation received millions from an organization known as the Friends of Saudi Arabia.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/clinton.donations Clinton's foundation got millions from Saudis, Gates], CNN, December 18, 2008. Univision TV owner also gave millions.</ref> With the theft of government records, and the admission Hillary scrubbed the server, the exact extent of a conflict of interest and other violations of law at present is unclear.<ref>[http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/30/gowdy-hillary-clinton-wiped-her-server-between-october-and-december-2014 Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Wiped Server Between October & December 2014], On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, ''[[FOX News]]'', 30 March 2015.</ref>
<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html How Hillary Clinton's email scandal took root], Robert O'Harrow Jr., ''Washington Post'', 27 March 2016.</ref>

====Rape victims====
As Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from the Kingdom of [[Saudi Arabia]], where rape victims are regularly flogged.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=1 Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record as Women’s Advocate], By AMY CHOZICK, ''New York Times'', MARCH 8, 2015.</ref><ref>[http://www.mrctv.org/blog/rand-paul-stone-age-barbaric-saudi-arabia-buying-influence-donating-hillary-clinton Rand Paul: 'Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Have Taken That Money' from Saudi Arabia], Barbara Boland | March 25, 2015. www.mrctv.org</ref><ref>[https://www.gop.com/clinton-foundation-takes-from-countries-that-mistreat-women/ Clinton Foundation Takes $$ From Countries That Mistreat Women], October 11, 2015. www.gop.com</ref><ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/clintons-outrage-at-saudi-rape-sentence/2007/11/22/1195321896405.html Clinton's 'outrage' at Saudi rape sentence], ''Sydney Morning Herald'', November 22, 2007.</ref><ref>Conservative group claims Hillary Clinton's foundation took millions from foreign governments, [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ Politifact: Statement:'''TRUE'''], By Steve Contorno, February 26th, 2015. politifact.com</ref> In 2015, a 19-year-old woman who was the victim of a violent gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of being “indecent” at the time of the attack. Saudi law dictates a woman must have a male escort in public. She originally was sentenced to 90 lashes; on appeal the sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in jail after found guilty of indecency and exposing the case in the media.

====Gay rights====
While [[homosexuality]] is punishable by [[death]] under certain circumstances, this particular active Clinton donor at the present time is seeking to increase the frequency at which [[execution]]s of [[gay]]s is carried out. The Saudi judicial system blames [[Social media]] for causing an increase in 'deliberate' acts of homosexuality. As of the first half of 2016, there were 35 people on death row in Saudi Arabia for sodomy.<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/saudi-arabia-pushes-homosexuals-executed-7672283 Saudi Arabia 'pushes for homosexuals to be executed' amid fears social media is 'turning people gay'], By Rhian Lubin, ''Mirror'', 1 April 2016. www.mirror.co.uk</ref>

====Arms sales====
As Sec. Clinton approved weapons transfers, both Saudi Arabia [[Boeing]] aircraft made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The ''[[Washington Post]]'' revealed that a Boeing [[lobbyist]] was also working as a fundraiser in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship], By Rosalind S. Helderman, ''Washington Post'', April 13, 2014.</ref>

'''Boeing F15 fighters''' 
Early in her tenure the $29.4 Billion sale and upgrades of Boeing F15 fighter aircraft was a 'top priority'. The Saudi air campaign in [[Yemen]] has been led by American-made F-15 fighter jets. According to the United Nations at least 2,800 civilians have been killed in airstrikes so far.<ref>[https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52938#.V2iKGKLT9aU Yemen: civilian casualties top 8,100 as airstrikes and shelling continue, UN reports], 5 January 2016. un.org</ref> Three facilities supported by Doctors Without Borders have been bombed.

'''Cluster bombs''' 
The U.N. Secretary General has decried “intense airstrikes in residential areas and on civilian buildings in Sanaa, including the chamber of commerce, a wedding hall, and a center for the blind,” and has warned that reports of cluster bombs being used in populated areas “may amount to a [[war crime]] due to their indiscriminate nature.”<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”], Lee Fang, ''The Intercept'', Feb. 22 2016</ref><ref>[[Human Rights Watch]] released a report providing new indications that Saudi Arabia has fired American-made cluster munitions, banned by international treaty, in civilian areas of Yemen. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/world/middleeast/new-report-of-us-made-cluster-bomb-use-by-saudis-in-yemen.html?_r=0 New Report of U.S.-Made Cluster Bomb Use by Saudis in Yemen], By RICK GLADSTONEFEB, ''New York Times'', February 14, 2016</ref>

===European migrant crisis===
[[File:IMG 20170511 212807.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The European refugee crisis, the result of what the Washington Post calls ''Hillary's War's''<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html</ref> - has permanently transformed European society.]]
:''Main article:'' [[European migrant crisis]]
The [[Libyan uprising|Libyan Civil War]] and [[Syrian War]], the legacies of President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed "[[Arab Spring]]" [[foreign policy]]<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/middle-east-egypt-us-policy/409537/ Islamism, the Arab Spring, and the Failure of America’s Do-Nothing Policy in the Middle East], SHADI HAMID, ''The Atlantic'', OCT 9, 2015</ref> — which according to their own public pronouncements was supposed to overthrow corrupt [[secular]] dictators and establish [[democracies]] by arming and assisting anti-democratic [[Islamist]]s<ref>[https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110523-obama-and-arab-kspring Obama and the Arab Spring], George Friedman, ''Stratfor'', MAY 24, 2011</ref> — resulted in attacks on gays and women, mass beheadings, wholesale slaughter,<ref>[http://www.jihadwatcheurope.org/daesh-slaughters-200-syrian-children-in-a-savage-mass-execution/ Daesh mass execution of 200 Syrian children, 2014]</ref> and a tsunami in excess of 6 million homeless migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and jihadis invading Europe.<ref>[http://www.unrefugees.org/2015/06/a-world-at-war/ Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2015], UNHCR, June 18, 2015</ref>

One major factor in [[Brexit]] is the [[European refugee crisis]], causing [[Britain]] to tighten its borders. Over 2 million Muslims settled in Germany - 4 times larger than Germany's standing military, in 2015 as a result of Hillary's call for "Assad must go." Nearly one million natural born citizens of their homeland left Germany at the same time.<ref>https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/over-2-million-muslims-migrated-to-germany-in-2015/</ref>

==2016 Presidential election campaign==
[[File:Hillary on the campaign trail.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Black faces were conspicuously absent from Clinton rallies; among other shocking revelations, the Pedosta emails flatly stated the Clinton machine "conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry."<ref>https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/13/podesta-pal-we-conspire-to-produce-an-unaware-and-compliant-citizenry/</ref>]]
:''Main article: [[2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign]]''
{{See also|Presidential Election 2016|Clinton donors in the Panama Papers|Hillary Clinton email scandal|Bill and Hillary Clinton and racism}}, ''[[United States presidential election, 2016#Clinton attacks on women|Clinton attacks on women]]''
Clinton has held several public offices, and also ran for president in 2008 and 2016. In 2008 she lost to [[Barack Obama]], but she won the democratic nomination in a controversial and contested primary fight over [[populist]] [[Bernie Sanders]] during the [[2016 Presidential Election]]. Although Clinton won the popular vote 65,853,516 (46.1%) to 62,984,825 (48.2%), Trump won the [[electoral college]] vote, 306 to 232, with the incomplete vote count reported.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/election/results|title=Election Results|accessdate=Nov. 12, 2016}}</ref>
===Rigged nomination===
The Democrat Iowa Caucus was very chaotic, poorly run, and whose results were very questionable.<ref>Samuelson, Darren (February 8, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/how-iowa-democrats-couldnt-handle-a-two-candidate-race-218934 Inside the Iowa caucus chaos]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Tuttle, Ian (February 5, 2016). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430878/hillary-clintons-iowa-victory-transparent-irregularities Iowa’s Transparently Dishonest Democratic Caucus]. ''National Review''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Jacobs, Jennifer (February 3, 2016). [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowas-nightmare-revisited-correct-winner-called-caucus-night/79702010/ Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?] ''The Des Moines Register''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> It was reported that the results of 90 precincts, about 5 percent of the vote, went missing.<ref>[http://conservativetribune.com/iowa-caucus-democrat-party/ Iowa Democrat Party Issues Stunning Announcement About Caucus Results]. ''Conservative Tribune''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

The Democrat primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the party was shown to be helping Clinton behind the scenes.<ref>Griffin, Andrew (November 9, 2016). [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-us-election-president-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html Donald Trump won election because Democrats rigged system to have Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, says WikiLeaks]. ''The Independent''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>Hoft, Jim (October 18, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/obama-lectures-media-integrity-elections-forgets-democrats-just-rigged-primary-bernie/ Obama Lectures Trump on "Rigged" Elections — Forgets That Democrats Just Rigged Primary Against Bernie]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> In addition, the Democrat primary has "superdelegates", who are made up of party leaders and can vote for whomever they want regardless of what the primary voters want.<ref>Resnikoff, Ned (May 16, 2016). [http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/why-will-superdelegates-decide-2016-democratic-primary-unearthed-documents-hold Why Will Superdelegates Decide The 2016 Democratic Primary? Unearthed Documents Hold The Key]. ''International Business Times''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Even the leftist website [[Salon Media Group]] believed the primary was rigged.<ref>Demoro, Roseann (March 30, 2016). [http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/ 10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start]. ''Salon''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref>

Donna Brazile, the interim DNC Chair, shared Democrat primary town hall questions to the Clinton campaign in order to help her win the primary.<ref>Shaw, Adam (March 17, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/brazile-admits-forwarded-debate-questions-to-clinton-camp.html Brazile admits she forwarded town hall questions to Clinton camp]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref><ref>Ernst, Douglas (March 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile-admits-leaking-debate-questions-to-c/ Donna Brazile admits leaking debate questions to Clinton camp: ‘A mistake I will forever regret’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> She continued to deny this fact through February 2017<ref>Scarry, Eddie (March 17, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donna-brazile-finally-admits-she-shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign/article/2617742 Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved March 17, 2017.</ref> and blamed [[Russia]] for the ordeal.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (March 18, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/18/donna-brazile-admits-to-sharing-debate-questions-with-clinton-camp-blames-russia/ Donna Brazile Admits to Sharing Debate Questions With Clinton Camp, Blames Russia]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 18, 2017.</ref>

===Wikileaks===
:''Main articles:'' '''[[Murder of Seth Rich]]''' ''and'' '''[[Clinton body count]]'''
Clinton talking points emphasized the idea that US intelligence, the same people who brought you the [[WMD]] debacle, claim Russia and Putin are responsible for the hack of [[DNC]] servers which resulted in the firing of Democratic National Committee Chair [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]. This presumably would exonerate anyone connected with the DNC or Clinton campaign from complity in the Murder of Seth Rich.
[[File:Sethrich-e1494948876256.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Seth Rich (1989-2016) was a Sanders' supporter who leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks. His bullet ridden body was found on a dark Washington DC street two weeks before Hillary's nominating convention.]]
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails provided by [[Wikileaks]] showed clear [[collusion]] between Clinton, [[mainstream media]] outlets, and the DNC to smear [[Bernie Sanders]]. Thousands of hopeful millennials felt betrayed by the Democratic party. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out on the eve of the convention, less than 24 hours after dozens of emails were published by Wikileaks showing her and her staff rigging the primary elections for Hillary Clinton.

Wikileaks founder [[Julian Assange]] has offered $20,000 cash reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killers or killer, the alleged [[Whistleblower Statutes|whistleblower]] who provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks and was murdered execution style in early July 2016. Hillary says of Assange in an email, "Can't we just drone this guy?"<ref>http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/</ref> To silence Assange, Wikileaks internet access was cut by the government of Ecuador after the release of Hillary's private paid speech to [[Goldman Sachs]]. Wikileaks Director, Prof. Gavin Macfayden, was found dead the following week. Macfayden's death was the third of a close associate of Assange in 6 months.<ref>https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790004642038050816/photo/1</ref>

===Donna Brazile===
After a live televised Commander-in-Chief discussion with [[NBC]]'s [[Matt Lauer]] where the questions were said to be agreed upon before hand, Lauer proceed to use the bulk of the time to press Hillary on questions of her controversial email server.<ref>https://youtu.be/kfGeXth-Do4</ref> When the broadcast was over, Hillary was reported to have f!own into a rage demanding Lauer to be fired. Addressing interim DNC Chair [[Donna Brazile]], Hillary proclaimed,
{{cquote|You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting ******* Lauer get away with this betrayal? Get the **** to work janitoring this mess- do I make myself clear?}}<ref>http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/</ref>

===Divisive and dismissive comments===
Hillary branded half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and called them "irredeemable". Her spokeswoman called Roman Catholics "severely backwards" and charging that they don’t know "what the hell they’re talking about."<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (October 12, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/catholic-group-calls-clinton-spokeswomans-resignat/ Catholic group calls for Clinton spokeswoman’s resignation after anti-Catholic comments in emails]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref>

===Health matters===
In late 2012 Hillary was reported to have suffered a concussion. Initial reports suggested it occurred after a "fainting" spell; other reports stated she suffered the concussion on board a C-12 Huron military aircraft which skidded off the runaway while in Iran to jumpstart negotiations on sanctions and the nuke deal.<ref>https://youtu.be/xTMw_w4IhBw</ref> The crash occurred on or about 8 December 2012; Hillary had a public "fainting" spell on 15 December 2012<ref>https://youtu.be/2f-_vtw0jWg</ref> which then led to reports she suffered a concussion. Reports say she was not hospitalized at that time. In a 24 December email she refers to having a "cracked head."<ref>https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/wikileaks-hillarys-crackhead-and-dementia-bombshell-hillary-clinton-used-drugs-for-dementia-and-parkinsons-disease-asked-nfl-chief-to-help-her-deal-with/</ref>

===Illegal fundraising 2016===
Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient.

State parties however can make unlimited transfers to the national party.

In 2014 the [[Supreme Court]] made clear in ''McCutcheon v. FEC'', the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions.

Six-figure donations to the Clinton machine either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting violations by he Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), state parties, and the DNC to other violations.

Donna Brazile and others admitted that the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.<ref>https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-anatomy-of-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/ </ref>

===Results===
It was widely expected that Clinton would win the election, and the elite pollsters and "political insiders" all predicted a massive Clinton victory.<ref>Vogel, Kenneth P. & Isenstadt, Alex (November 9, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036 How did everyone get it so wrong?]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Catanese, David (October 24, 2016). [http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-10-24/republicans-last-hope-the-polls-are-wrong Republicans’ Last Hope: The Polls Are Wrong]. ''U.S. News & World Report''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> At least once, when a poll was released that actually showed Trump leading, Clinton's campaign dismissed it as "bad polling".<ref>Nelson, Louis (November 1, 2016). [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591 Clinton camp on new survey showing Trump ahead: It’s ‘bad polling’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> Instead, Trump won the election in a massive, historical upset, winning even states such as [[Pennsylvania]], [[Michigan]], and [[Wisconsin]], which a Republican had not won for 20–30 years.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/08/first-polls-close-in-2016-race-trump-projected-to-win-ind-ky-clinton-wins-vt.html Trump wins presidency, defeats Clinton in historic election upset]. ''Fox News''. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Blake, Aaron (November 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/ Donald Trump just blew up the electoral map]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> The polling and predictions were off dramatically.<ref>Flint, Joe & Alpert, Lukas I. (November 9, 2016). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-polling-in-hand-media-misses-mark-badly-with-election-predictions-1478710860 How the Media’s Election Predictions Badly Missed the Mark]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

A version of ''[[Newsweek]]'' magazine was printed that reported a Clinton victory, saying "Madam President: Hillary Clinton’s historic journey to the White House", was published and distributed before the election results even came in.<ref>Greenslade, Roy (November 10, 2016). [https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/10/if-only-donald-trump-had-come-second-eh-hillary Madam President: how Newsweek reported a Clinton victory]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> It appears that it is procedural and normal to make a copy for both candidates, but Clinton signed a copy of it prior to the election.<ref>Taylor, Kristinn (November 9, 2016). [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/hubris-hillary-clinton-signed-newsweek-madam-president-cover-election-eve/ Hubris: Hillary Clinton Signed Newsweek ‘Madam President’ Cover On Election Eve]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> She later admitted that she did not draft a concession speech.<ref>Shepherd, Todd (September 10, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-concedes-i-had-not-drafted-a-concession-speech/article/2633949 Hillary Clinton concedes: 'I had not drafted a concession speech']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 11, 2017.</ref>

After the election, ''The American Spectator'' reported that on the night of the election, Clinton threw a massive extreme temper tantrum after she had realized she lost the election.<ref name="HRCMeltdown">Multiple references:
*R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (November 14, 2016). [https://spectator.org/where-was-hillary/ Where Was Hillary?]. ''The American Spectator.'' Retrieved August 20, 2017.
*Flynn, Daniel J. (November 15, 2016). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/hillary-clinton-screaming-obscenities-and-throwing-objects-in-election-night-meltdown/ Hillary Clinton Screaming Obscenities and Throwing Objects in Election Night Meltdown]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> According to a Secret Service agent, it was reported that "she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage."<ref name="HRCMeltdown"/> Additionally, it was further reported that she became physical towards John Podesta and Robby Mook, needing to be restrained.<ref>Rusty (November 15, 2016). [http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-drunk-violent-meltdown-election-night/ Reports: Clinton Had a Violent Meltdown on Election Night]. ''The Political Insider''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> This explains why she did not make a concession speech on election night, and why she delayed it the next morning multiple times.<ref>[http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Clinton-calls-Trump-to-congratulate-him-on-victory--400515131.html UPDATE | Clinton campaign pushes back address one hour]. ''WRDW'' (with ''AP''). November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref><ref>Strause, Jackie (November 9, 2016). [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-emotional-sorry-watch-945702 Hillary Clinton Delivers Emotional, Inspiring Concession Speech: "I'm Sorry"]. ''The Hollywood Reporter''. Retrieved November 20, 2016.</ref> Although Clinton had repeatedly claimed that Trump was too "temperamentally unfit"<ref>Balakrishana, Anita (September 8, 2016). [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clinton-press-conference.html Clinton: Trump is totally unqualified to be commander in chief]. ''CNBC''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref> or "irresponsible" to be president, this evidence, and others, shows otherwise.<ref name="RiddellHRCtemper">Riddell, Kelly (May 23, 2016). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/23/hillary-clinton-hits-trump-temper-shes-no-picnic/ Hillary Clinton hits Trump on temper, but she’s no picnic, either]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref><ref name="UnruhHRCviolent">Unruh, Bob (November 15, 2016). [http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/report-hillary-physically-violent-after-losing/ Report: Hillary 'physically violent' after losing]. ''WND''. Retrieved November 18, 2016.</ref>

After condemning Trump's pre-election refusal to accept election results regardless of outcome as a threat to democracy, Clinton donors funded a recount effort only in states Trump won which backfired and netted Trump a gain in popular vote totals. Wealthy donors who contributed over $1 billion to her campaign demanded an accounting for her loss, insisting without an independent, dispassionate review they could not be expected to continue contributing to the Democratic party in the future.<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715</ref> The Clinton machine and Obama administrations responded by blaming [[Vladimir Putin]] and FBI Director James Comey for the loss rather than mismanagement and poor strategic planning.

===Anti-Trump violence and hate crimes===
After the election, childish [[leftists]] and [[anarchists]], who could not accept the results of the election, strongly protested Trump's victory and committed outrageous and extreme acts of vandalism and violence.<ref name="Protests">Chiaramonte, Perry (November 10, 2016). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html Trump protests intensify, as doubts swirl about spontaneity]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Trump supporters were the victims of numerous targeted attacks, brutal violence, and [[hate crime]]s.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/video-emerges-group-beating-chicago-man-while-yelling-dont-vote-trump.html Video emerges of mob beating Chicago man while yelling 'don't vote Trump']. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2016/11/trump-supporter-15-beaten-during-rockville-protest/slide/1/</ref> A tech company corporate CEO threatened to murder Donald Trump.<ref>http://bgr.com/2016/11/15/man-threatens-to-kill-trump-ceo-sniper/</ref> The brutal and disturbing anti-Trump hate crimes (or hate crimes closely related to Trump's election) continued to occur into the next year.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/facebook-live-attack-latest-in-string-anti-trump-assaults.html Facebook Live attack the latest in string of anti-Trump assaults]. ''Fox News''. January 5, 2017. Retrieved January 6, 2017.</ref> Democrat leaders, Obama and the Clinton machine refused to condemn the hate and violence. Ads for paid protesters appeared on Craigslist. Many of these protests were likely organized and coordinated, as many protestors were bused in by Coach buses.<ref name="Protests"/>
[[Image:Scream.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Many Clinton supporters likened Hillary's loss, and Donald Trump's victory, to Edward Munch's ''The Scream''.]]
Despite these attacks, liberals and leftists only focused on alleged attacks by Trump supporters against minorities and others (the false leftist narrative, although being blatantly false and one-sided, fits their manufactured narrative that Trump supporters are "racist" and "evil" and that leftists are "tolerant" and "forgiving", despite the opposite being true). It was found that despite the number of real anti-Trump attacks, several of the "pro-Trump" attacks were found to be hoaxes.<ref name="LatestAntiTrump"/>

===The ''shattered'' Clinton campaign===
Clinton continued to blame "misogyny" (even from women) for her loss of the election, as well as supposed Russian meddling in the election, James Comey, and WikiLeaks.<ref>Breitman, Kendall (April 7, 2017). [http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581 Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump]. ''NBC News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Kew, Ben (April 6, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2017/04/06/hillary-clinton-again-blames-misogyny-for-election-defeat/ Hillary Clinton Again Blames ‘Misogyny’ for Election Defeat]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 8, 2017.</ref>

In April 2017, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes released the book ''Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'' revealed that the Clinton campaign was a dysfunctional disaster and that numerous mistakes during the campaign contributed to her defeat.<ref>Adams, Becket; Weaver, Al (April 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/im-sorry-clinton-campaign-disaster-laid-bare-in-new-book/article/2620518 'I'm sorry': Clinton campaign disaster laid bare in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Geraghty, Jim (April 19, 2017). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446885/shattered-jonathan-allen-amie-parnes-clinton-campaign-dysfunction-revealed Shattered Illusions]. ''National Review''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref><ref>Kakutani, Michiko (April 17, 2017). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 'Shattered' Charts Hillary Clinton's Course Into the Iceberg]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book reveals that Clinton did not plan on conceding the election until Obama told her to do so.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-excerpts-from-shattered-and-what-they-tell-us-about-clintons-loss/ Takeaways from the Clinton campaign autopsy "Shattered"]. ''CBS News''. April 18, 2017. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref> The book also revealed that within 24 hours after her loss, the Clinton campaign, particularly [[John Podesta]] and [[Robby Mook]], developed the claim of alleged collusion between Trump and Russia to give to the public as the center reason for the loss.<ref>Hudson, Jerome (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/shattered-revelation-clinton-campaign-hatched-russian-hacking-narrative-24-hours-after-hillarys-loss/ ‘Shattered’ Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillary’s Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.</ref>

*Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes (2017). ''[https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084 Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign]''. New York: Crown. ISBN: 978-0553447088.

In May 2017, former Democrat Vice President [[Joe Biden]] admitted: "I never thought [Clinton] was a great candidate."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/19/biden-knocks-clinton-not-great-candidate.html Biden knocks Clinton: Not a 'great' candidate]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 19, 2017.</ref>

Clinton blamed nearly everything except herself for her election loss.<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/01/list-everyone-everything-hillary-clinton-has-blamed-loss-trump Here's a List of Everyone & Everything Hillary Has Blamed for Her Loss]. ''Fox News Insider''. June 1, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Concha, Joe (September 13, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/350404-foxs-guilfoyle-clinton-mad-at-everybody Fox's Guilfoyle: Clinton 'mad at everybody']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
See also:
*Giaritelli, Anna (September 13, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-my-own-mistakes-werent-enough-to-lose-the-election/article/2634237 Hillary Clinton: My own mistakes weren't enough to lose the election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 13, 2017.</ref> She blamed figures both on the Right and Left,<ref>Nelson, Louis (September 12, 2017). [https://www.politico.eu/article/hillary-clinton-book-memoir-12-times-dishes-out-payback-in-her-tell-all-book/ 12 times Clinton dishes out payback in her tell-all book]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> as well as Chief Justice [[John Roberts]]<ref>Lovelace, Ryan (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-blames-chief-justice-john-roberts-for-contributing-to-her-election-loss-in-new-book/article/2634059 Hillary Clinton blames Chief Justice John Roberts for contributing to her election loss in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> blue collar workers,<ref>Wegmann, Philip (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-writes-that-jd-vance-was-right-hillbillies-lost-me-my-election/article/2634117 Hillary Clinton writes that J.D. Vance was right. Hillbillies lost me my election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and misogynist white women. In her 2017 book ''What Happened'', in which she blamed many of those people, Clinton effectively stated that authoritarianism can be started through the questioning of leaders,<ref>Adams, Becket (September 12, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-funny-idea-of-authoritarianism/article/2634180 Hillary Clinton's funny idea of authoritarianism]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> and she stated that all Democrats should vote in favor of abortion every time even if they are pro-life.<ref>Berry, Susan (September 12, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-democrats-who-are-pro-life-must-vote-to-promote-abortion/ Hillary Clinton: Democrats Who Are Pro-Life Must Vote to Promote Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Jashinsky, Emily (September 11, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-urges-democratic-party-to-adopt-litmus-test-on-abortion-in-new-book/article/2634060 Hillary Clinton urges Democratic Party to adopt litmus test on abortion in new book]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 12, 2017.</ref> She blamed at least 27 different people or entities for her loss.<ref>Starr, Penny (November 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/08/27-excuses-hillary-clinton-has-made-for-her-2016-election-loss/ 27 Excuses Hillary Clinton Has Made for Her 2016 Election Loss]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 8, 2017.</ref>

==Later life==
Since Dir. Comey's firing by President Trump, and the ascendancy the [[Attorney General]] [[Jeff Sessions]], Clinton may face more [[legal]] problems in relation to pay-to-play schemes as [[Secretary of State]] and donations to the [[Clinton Foundation]].

FBI director [[James Comey]] reopened an investigation into Clinton due to substantiated suspicions that former Attorney General [[Loretta Lynch]] was covering for her.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (April 23, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/23/russians-hacked-democrats-plans-cheat-general-election/ The Russians Hacked Democrats’ Plans to Cheat in the General Election, Too]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref> Comey revealed that Clinton had sent classified information to [[Anthony Weiner]].<ref>Wong, Kristina (May 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/03/comey-defends-himself-says-makes-him-mildly-nauseous-to-think-he-affected-election/ Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref>

As of May 2016, Clinton planned on forming per own PAC and becoming a paid speaker.<ref>Berger, Judson (May 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/03/clinton-obama-return-to-public-eye-with-new-ventures.html Clinton, Obama return to public eye with new ventures]. ''Fox News''. May 3, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.</ref> She created a PAC, called "Onward Together", which intended to promote left-wing and [[Opposition to Donald Trump|anti-Trump]] causes.<ref>Weber, Joseph (May 18, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/18/clinton-pac-aims-to-boost-left-wing-anti-trump-groups-will-still-have-clout.html Clinton PAC aims to boost left-wing, anti-Trump groups – will she still have clout?] ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 18, 2017.</ref>

Despite criticizing Trump during the campaign for refusing to accept the election results as legitimate, Clinton did not rule out doing the same thing after the election.<ref>Yilek, Caitlin (September 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-presidential-election/article/2634777 Hillary Clinton won't rule out questioning legitimacy of presidential election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 18, 2017.</ref>

In September 2018, the Texas Board of Education voted to pull Clinton from the state's social studies curriculum.<ref>Farber, Madeline (September 14, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/texas-board-ed-votes-to-pull-hillary-clinton-and-helen-keller-from-social-studies-curriculum.html Texas Board of Ed votes to pull Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller from social studies curriculum]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 15, 2018.</ref>

==Quotes==
*"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being."<ref>''The Case Against Hillary Clinton ', [[Peggy Noonan]], p. 55</ref>

==See also==
*[[Clinton Cash]]
*[[Freedom of Choice Act]]
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Obamagate timeline|Obamagate timeline 2016 election year]]
*[[Russiagate timeline 2017]]
*[[Russiagate timeline|Russiagate timeline 2018]]
*[[Uranium One bribery scandal]]
*[[Benghazigate timeline]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton facts]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton's net worth]]
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton and Watergate]]
*[[Clinton scandal]]s
*[[Awan investigation]]
*[[Sandy Berger]]
*[[Charles Schumer]]
*[[Honorarium]]
*[[FusionGPS]]
*[[Marc Elias]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

==External links==
*[https://www.hillaryclinton.com Hillary Rodham Clinton 2016 campaign website]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=Clinton+Email&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber= 12,173 declassified stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department]
*[https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email 30,322 stolen Clinton emails recovered by State Department under the FOIA]
*[https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/ Stolen Clinton emails recovered by Russian Television]
*[https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton Declassified FBI criminal investigation documents]
*[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NARA-Whitewater-OIC-report-pg-17-38.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiCmYSQuPLOAhUUT2MKHXvlDfIQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNFsX5z4OidXZMAJTkf5XsXn-B58QQ&sig2=2Uuf3pYqTlZPGjM2k11X6Q Summary of Evidence for Draft Indictment], Office of the Independent Counsel, 4/10/98
*[https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor State of Arkansas v Thomas Alfred Taylor]. Official record of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1975 defense of a child rapist.

{{Liberalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Hillary Clinton]]
[[Category:Bill Clinton]]
[[Category:Bigotry]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]
[[Category:Clinton Administration]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Obama Cabinet]]
[[Category:United States Secretaries of State]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton email scandal]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax]]
[[Category:Clinton scandals]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:1990s]]
[[Category:2000s]]
[[Category:2010s]]

Lyndon B. Johnson

2018-11-08T17:26:59Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{Officeholder
|name=Lyndon B. Johnson
|image=LBJ by Shoumatoff.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party|Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Lady Bird Johnson]]
|religion=[[Disciples of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969
|vp=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
|preceded=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Richard Nixon]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963
|president=[[John F. Kennedy]]
|preceded=[[Richard Nixon]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Hubert Humphrey]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Texas
|terms=January 3, 1949 – January 3, 1961
|preceded=W. Lee O'Daniel
|former=y
|succeeded=[[William Blakley]] (interim) 
[[John Tower]] (permanent)
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Texas
|district=10th
|terms=April 10, 1937 – January 3, 1949
|preceded=[[James P. Buchanan]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Homer Thornberry]]
}}
}}
'''Lyndon Baines Johnson''' (1908–1973), often referred to as '''LBJ''', was the 36th [[President of the United States of America]] (1963–1969). After serving in the House and Senate since 1937, Johnson was elected Vice President in 1960, and in November, 1963, he succeeded to the presidency following President [[John F. Kennedy]]'s assassination. President Kennedy disliked his Vice President Johnson so much that Kennedy ostracized him from social events, and Johnson was perhaps the most crooked, bullying politician ever to become president.<ref>[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm ''LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident Source: John Prados, The White House Tapes'']</ref>

In [[Texas]] Johnson stole his first election to the [[U.S. Senate]], as recounted by historians. As president in 1964, Johnson ordered the [[CIA]] to infiltrate and spy on his [[conservative]] opponent, [[Barry Goldwater]], which enabled Johnson to preempt Goldwater's initiatives with Johnson's own. Johnson also lied about the [[Gulf of Tonkin]] attack in order to boost Jonson's reelection chances in 1964.

Johnson began his career as a liberal [[New Deal]]er, later when he became a senator he initially aligned himself with the Southern Democrats, although by the time he ascended to Senate Leadership he espoused moderate politics in an attempt to bridge both wings of the fractious [[Democratic Party]]. However, as President he seized the leadership of liberalism citing [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as his role model. Johnson moved the [[Democratic Party]] to the left, and pushed through Congress the [[Great Society]], comprising liberal economic policy including Medicare (free health care for the elderly), Medicaid (free health care for the poor), aid to education, and a major "War on Poverty". As part of his jobs program he greatly escalated the American troop strength in [[Vietnam]] through [[conscription]], from 16,000 in 1963 to 23,000 by the end of 1964 and finally to 550,000 by early 1968. [[Unemployment]] consequently, remained in check.

Johnson won reelection in a landslide in 1964 over [[conservative]] leader [[Barry Goldwater]], and proceeded to push through a massive expansion of federal programs known as the "Welfare State." This included [[Medicare]], food stamps, and federal spending on education. Johnson also supported the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965, which passed over a Democratic Filibuster.

Johnson's popularity steadily declined after 1966 and his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his Democratic party primarily due to Johnson's mishandling (and micromanagement) of the [[Vietnam War]] (which also ironically involved the [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|intentionally false reporting]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] on the [[Tet Offensive]]). Johnson was humiliated by a primary challenge to his reelection from fellow [[Democrat]] [[Eugene McCarthy]] in early 1968 in [[New Hampshire]], and then LBJ withdrew as a candidate for reelection. His Vice President [[Hubert Humphrey]] lost in the general election due in part to Johnson's unpopularity.

==Early years==
Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored numerous small rural churches in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of [[Baylor University]] during the [[American Civil War]]. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson.

Johnson was born in Stonewall, Texas, in a small farmhouse in a poor farming area along the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and the former Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys. The nearby village of Johnson City, Texas, was named after a relative who came from Georgia. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his eleventh-grade class.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/36_l_johnson/tguide/l_johnson_dk.html</ref> He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924.<ref>http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp</ref>

In 1926, Johnson enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers' College (now called Texas State University-San Marcos). He worked his way through school, participated in debate and campus politics, edited the school newspaper, and graduated in 1931. Biographer Robert Caro asserts he was known as "the biggest liar on campus." <ref>Caro, Robert A. The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1982. p. xx</ref> The college years refined his remarkable skills of persuasion and political organization. One year Johnson taught mostly Mexican American children at the Welhausen School in Cotulla, Texas. When he returned to San Marcos in 1965, after having signed the [[Higher Education Act]], Johnson looked back:
:"''I shall never forget the faces of the boys and the girls in that little Welhausen Mexican School, and I remember even yet the pain of realizing and knowing then that college was closed to practically every one of those children because they were too poor. And I think it was then that I made up my mind that this Nation could never rest while the door to knowledge remained closed to any American''."<ref>see [http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm "Remarks at Southwest Texas State College Upon Signing the Higher Education Act of 1965"]</ref>

==Early political career==
After graduation, Johnson briefly taught public speaking at Genesee Community College and debate in a Houston high school, then entered politics. Johnson's father had served five terms in the Texas legislature and was a close friend to one of Texas's rising political figures, Congressman [[Sam Rayburn]]. In 1930, Johnson campaigned for Texas state Senator Welly Hopkins in his run for Congress. Hopkins recommended him to Congressman [[Richard M. Kleberg]], who appointed Johnson as Kleberg's legislative secretary. LBJ was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," a group of Congressional aides, where he cultivated Congressmen, newspapermen and lobbyists. Johnson's friends soon included aides to President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], as well as fellow Texans such as Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. He became a surrogate son to Sam Rayburn.

Johnson married Claudia Alta Taylor (already nicknamed "Lady Bird") of Karnack, Texas on November 17, 1934 after she had attended Georgetown University Law School for several months. They had two daughters, Lynda Bird Johnson, born in 1944, and Luci Baines Johnson, born in 1947. Johnson enjoyed giving people and animals his own LBJ initials; his daughters' given names are examples, as was his dog Little Beagle Johnson.

In 1935, he was appointed head of the Texas [[National Youth Administration]] (NYA), which enabled him to use the government to create educational and job opportunities for young people. He resigned two years later to run for Congress. Johnson was a notoriously tough boss throughout his career, often demanding long workdays and work on weekends; he worked as hard as any of them.<ref>Woods, (2006), p. 131</ref>

==House years==
Johnson resigned from his NYA job in 1937 to run successfully in a special election for a seat in the [[House of Representatives]] representing [[Austin, Texas|Austin]] and the surrounding Hill Country. He ran on a [[New Deal]] platform and was effectively aided by his wife, Lady Bird Johnson.

President Roosevelt found Johnson to be a welcome ally and conduit for information, particularly with regards to issues concerning internal politics in Texas (informally dubbed "Operation Texas") and the machinations of Vice President Garner and House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Johnson was immediately appointed to the powerful Naval Affairs Committee. He worked for rural electrification and other improvements for his district. Johnson steered the projects towards contractors which he personally knew, such as the Brown Brothers, Herman and George, who would finance much of Johnson's future career.<ref>Caro, (1982) is full of details.</ref> In 1941, he ran for the U.S. Senate (while not giving up his House seat) in a special election against the sitting governor, radio personality W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. Johnson was not expected to win against the popular governor, but he ran a strong race and was declared the winner in unofficial returns. He ultimately was defeated by controversial official returns in an election marked by massive fraud on the part of both campaigns.

==Senate years==

In 1948, Johnson won an election for [[U.S. Senate]] by stealing the election, according even to historians sympathetic to him. Johnson ran against former governor Coke Stevenson; neither candidate won a majority of the votes in the election, which under Texas law forced a runoff between Johnson and Stevenson. Johnson then claimed a 87-vote victory over Stevenson in the runoff, which was fraudulent.<ref>See eg Robert A Caro Master of the ''Senate Means of Assent''</ref> After joining the Senate, Johnson established relationships with several senior senators, including [[Richard Russell]]. Johnson was appointed to the powerful [[Armed Services Committee]] in 1950, and became chairman of the Preparedness Subcommittee which brought him into the public spotlight much like [[Harry Truman]] used the "Truman Committee" during the Second World War. He was named minority whip in 1951 under Democratic leader Bob McFarland, and he became the leader of the [[Democratic Party]] in the Senate in 1953. His first major policy, with the support of Russell, was to bypass the Seniority rule in committee assignments, which meant that Senators became reliant on his favour in order to obtain positions on important committees. This move, in combination with his strong personality gave him power of senators that had not been seen before (or since) in Senate History. He is often referred to as the "Master of the Senate". Surprisingly, after he became majority leader in 1955 he supported many of Eisenhower's proposals despite the partisan resistance of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. This allowed him to bask in the reflected glow of Eisenhower's immense popularity and gain a reputation for working across the aisle and getting things done.

Although publicly posing as a Civil Rights hero, in private Johnson was—like most southern Democrats of the 1960s—a racist: When his sometime chauffeur, Robert Parker, told LBJ he’d prefer to be called by his name rather than "boy," "nigger" or "chief," Johnson replied, "As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture."<ref>Robert Parker and Richard L. Rashke, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JKhpZMj8Z6wC Capitol Hill in Black and White]'' (Penguin Group, 1989), ISBN 0515101893, p. v.</ref>

In his capacity as Majority Leader of the Senate, Johnson joined with [[Strom Thurmond]] to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But when Senate Republicans re-introduced the bill, LBJ said, "I'm going to have to bring up the nigger bill again," according to LBJ's White House Special Counsel Harry McPherson.<ref>Michael L. Gillette, [http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/mcpherson/mcpher06.pdf Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI], 5/16/85, LBJ Library, 16 May 1985.</ref> "Let's face it. Our ass is in a crack. We're gonna have to let this nigger bill pass," he told Senator John Stennis (D-MS), according to a Pulitzer Prize winning<ref>[http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Biography-or-Autobiography Biography or Autobiography]. Past winners & finalists by category. The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved 2012-03-24.</ref> biography.<ref>Caro, Robert A. (2002). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=U87rzAqVhbwC The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3]''. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360.</ref> According to Bancroft Prize winning<ref>[http://library.columbia.edu/about/awards/bancroft/previous_awards.html The Bancroft Prizes: Previous Awards]. The Columbia University Libraries/Information Services</ref> biographer Robert Dallek, he asked Senator Sam Rayburn (D-TX), "Sam, why don't you all let this nigger bill pass?"<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350.</ref> According to former Harvard historian and Johnson staffer Doris Kearns Goodwin, LBJ explained his position to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) thus:
{{cquote|These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.<ref>Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1977). [https://books.google.com/books?id=HS9aAAAAYAAJ Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream]. New York: New American Library. p. 155. ISBN 0451140826</ref>}}

Johnson saw to it that once the bill reached the Senate judiciary committee it was weakened enough to ensure passage, the first passed since Reconstruction. Johnson then took credit. He was a master at balancing the powerful southern wing of the Democratic party with the liberal northern and eastern wing. He would employ very effective tactics of persuasion with senators; including intimidation, flattery, threats and promises. Johnson sought the Democratic nomination for president prior to the [[United States presidential election, 1960|1960 election]], but accepted the nomination for vice-president following Kennedy's nomination.

==Presidency==
{{see also|Great Society}}
Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn into the [[President of the United States of America|Office of the President]] just hours after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The [[Oath of Office]] took place aboard [[Air Force One]] just prior to the flight to [[Washington DC]] from [[Dallas]]. It was administered by [[Sarah T. Hughes]] (one of the first justices to hear and write the decision for [[Roe v. Wade]] in favor of [[abortion]]).<ref>University of North Texas Libraries, Sarah T. Hughes Collection, http://www.library.unt.edu/archives/historical-manuscripts/historical-manuscripts-exhibits/hughes/</ref> Also, since no Bible could be found aboard Air Force One, Johnson recited the oath with his hand on a [[Roman Catholic]] [[missal]] which had been in Kennedy's desk.<ref>New York Times, "After a Time of Tragedy, a Beginning Toward the 'Great Society,'" January 1973. Online at https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-tragedy.html</ref> Largely because of the KGB's disinformation campaign shortly after the JFK assassination, Johnson was often believed by conspiracy theorists to have been the one who arranged for Kennedy's assassination to get into the presidency. However, declassified CIA documents in 2015 that dated back to the assassination revealed that Johnson learned from the CIA that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been getting visas for escape from the country via Cuba and the Soviet Union only three days after the assassination occurred, making this motive unlikely.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3237770/Declassified-CIA-memo-reveals-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-visited-embassies-Cuba-Soviet-Union-plot-escape-assassinating-John-F-Kennedy.html</ref>

As President, Johnson greatly expanded the federal government with his [[Great Society]] programs. He played a key role in helping the [[civil rights movement]] win legislative victories, pushing for the adoption of the [[Civil Rights Act]] (1964), which outlawed segregation, and the [[Voting Rights Act]] (1965), which guaranteed African-Americans' right to vote. President Johnson's support for civil rights was purely partisan. Discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with two southern governors on Air Force One, LBJ stated, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years,” according to Air Force One steward Robert M. MacMillan. “That was the reason he was pushing the bill," added MacMillan, an African American, "not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic Party. He was phony from the word go.”<ref>Interview with Robert M. MacMillan, March 23, 1993, cited in Ronald Kessler, ''[https://books.google.com/books/about/Inside_the_White_House.html?id=lJz-yIZNE2sC Inside the White House]'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 33, ISBN 0671879197.</ref>

Johnson also appointed [[NAACP]] lawyer [[Thurgood Marshall]] the first African American Supreme Court Justice. When a young White House attorney recommended Federal Judge William Henry Hastie—who had been Marshall's professor at Harvard Law School—as a more qualified African American candidate, LBJ rejected the light-skinned Hastie, explaining, "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."<ref>Dallek, Robert (1991). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=t_LjEJdaAiYC Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960]''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Hastie had previously been considered for the Court by Eisenhower in 1956, who shelved the idea because Hastie's nomination would have been "[https://books.google.com/books?id=RAVl_KwcBuAC&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false filibustered to death] by Southerners on the floor of the Senate" (All 22 southern Senators at the time were [http://historycms.house.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=40930 white Democrats]); and again in 1962 by Kennedy, who rejected him after white liberals -- Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas -- objected that Hastie, an African American, was [https://books.google.com/books?id=7UTPwJNHQG4C&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false too conservative] (As Warren put it, "He's not a liberal, and he'll be opposed to the measures we're interested in.") During World War II, Hastie had laid the groundwork for the 1947 integration of the US armed forces when he [http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/09/_1st_black_federal_judges_who_were_they.html resigned as aide to Secretary of War Henry Stimson] in protest of segregated training in the US Army Air Force for the Tuskeegee Airmen.</ref>

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Johnson ran "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/revisiting-the-daisy-ad-revolution/ the most negative political ad in American history]," a campaign ad titled "Daisy," smearing Republican challenger [[Barry Goldwater]] as a warmonger who threatened nuclear devastation. Thus "[http://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/lbjs-atomic-ad1964-daisy-girl/ the negative political ad was born], initiating the clever use of image and sound to paint an opponent in negative or scary terms."

Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide over Goldwater but, ironically, greatly expanded American involvement in [[Vietnam]] (see [[Vietnam War]]). In November 1965, during a meeting with his Joint Chiefs, after stating how they could mine the North Vietnamese ports as well as do massive aerial strikes on Hanoi to prevent Soviet or other Communist aid from going into the region, although Johnson seemingly acted receptive, he then turned around and started screaming various obscenities, including using the f-word more freely as an adjective than a Marine at boot camp, and told them he was disgusted with their naivety and made clear that he wasn't going to let "military idiots" drag him into World War III before bluntly dismissing them by telling them to "get the hell out of [Johnson's] office!"<ref>Cheers and Tears: A Marine's Story of Combat in Peace and War (2002).</ref> His popularity plunged as the death toll from the conflict in Vietnam steadily increased. In early 1968, faced with plummeting poll numbers and mounting public opposition to his foreign policy, Johnson announced that he would neither seek nor accept his party's nomination for the presidency in 1968. This decision may have been brought about by his supprisingly narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary over Eugene McCarthy, a liberal anti-war Democrat. It is widely thought that had he run, he would have been trounced in the primaries or in the subsequent general election—eventually won by Republican [[Richard M. Nixon]]. Another reason he decided to not pursue reelection may have also had to do with the then-recent reporting of the 1968 [[Tet Offensive]] by [[Walter Cronkite]] that [[Liberal bias#Vietnam War|falsely implied]] that America was losing the Vietnam War (with Johnson allegedly stating to his aides during the broadcast that "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America"), coupled by a failed attempt to explain otherwise to the American public.<ref>http://www.iancfriedman.com/?p=383</ref>

==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Caro, Robert A. ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (3 volumes as of 2006): ''The Path to Power'' (1982); ''Means of Ascent'' (1990); ''Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson'' (2002). The most detailed biography, extends to 1960; generally hostile to LBJ; See Dallek and Woods for balanced biographies; [http://www.amazon.com/Path-Power-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0679729453/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-2 vol 1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [http://www.amazon.com/Means-Ascent-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/067973371X/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-3 vol 2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]; [http://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Lyndon-Johnson-Vintage/dp/0394720954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-1 vol 3 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908–1960'' (1991), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59394514 online edition vol 1]; ''Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961–1973'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65196503 online edition vol 2]; also: '' Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President'' (2004). A 400-page abridged version of his 2 volume scholarly biography, [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103184871 online edition of short version].
* Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''Lyndon Johnson & the American Dream'' (1977). A character study.
* Schulman, Bruce J. ''Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism: A Brief Biography with Documents'' (1995)
* Woods, Randall. ''LBJ: Architect of American Ambition'' (2006). A highly detailed scholarly biography (1000 pages). [http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Architect-American-Randall-Woods/dp/0684834588/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189835998&sr=1-1 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]

===Presidential years===
* Altschuler, Bruce E.; ''LBJ and the Polls'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37809550 online edition]
* Andrew, John A. ''Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society'' (1999) 224 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1566631858/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Bernstein, Irving. ''Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson'' 1994.
* Bornet, Vaughn Davis. ''The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson''. 1983
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63'' (1989) [http://www.amazon.com/Parting-Waters-America-Years-1954-63/dp/0671687425/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722057&sr=1-31 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Pillar-Fire-America-Years-1963-65/dp/0684848090/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208722178&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Branch, Taylor. ''At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68'' (2007)
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 1: Foreign Policy, the Great Society and the White House.'' 1981; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 2: Vietnam, the Environment, and Science.'' 1987; essays by scholars
* Divine, Robert A., ed. ''The Johnson Years. Vol. 3: LBJ at Home and Abroad''. 1994; essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Johnson-Years-Three-Home-Abroad/dp/0700606556/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-5 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Firestone, Bernard J., and Robert C. Vogt, eds. ''Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Uses of Power.'' (1988); essays by scholars [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23324778 online edition]
* Graham, Hugh Davis. ''The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972'' (1990)
* Gould, Lewis L. ''Lady Bird Johnson and the Environment.'' 1988.
* Lichtenstein, Nelson, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Johnson Years''. 1976. short biographies of 400+ key politicians
* Mann, Robert. ''The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.'' 1996.
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jerome M. Mileur, eds. ''The Great Society And The High Tide Of Liberalism'' (2005) 490pp of essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1558494936/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Redford, Emmette S., and Marlan Blissett. ''Organizing the Executive Branch: The Johnson Presidency.'' 1981.
* Shesol, Jeff. ''Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Shaped a Decade'' 1997.
* White, Theodore H. ''The Making of the President, 1964'' 1965. [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zarefsky, David. ''President Johnson's War on Poverty'' 1986.

===Vietnam===
* Barrett, David Marshall. ''Advice and Dissent: An Organizational Analysis of the Evolution of Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam Advisory System, 1965–1968.'' (University of Notre Dame, 1990)
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam'' (1991)
* Brands, H. W. ''The Wages of Globalism: Lyndon Johnson and the Limits of American Power '' (1997)
* Casey, Francis Michael. ''The Vietnam Policy of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in Response to the Theory of the Protracted Conflict as Applied in the Politics of Indochina: A Case Study of Threat Perception and Assessment in the Crisis Management Process of a Pluralistic Society.'' (Claremont Graduate School, 1976)
* Cherwitz, Richard Arnold. ''The Rhetoric of the Gulf of Tonkin: A Study of the Crisis Speaking of President Lyndon B. Johnson.'' (University of Iowa, 1978)
* Goodnight, Lisa Jo. ''The Conservative Voice of a Liberal President: An Analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1993)
* Kaiser, David E. ''American tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the origins of the Vietnam War.'' (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000) ISBN 0-674-00225-3
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam, A History.'' (Penguin, 1991), balanced assessment
* Logevall, Fredrik Bengt Johan. ''Fear to Negotiate: Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1963–1965.'' (Yale University, 1993)
* Turner, Kathleen Jane. ''The Effect of Presidential-Press Interaction on Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam War Rhetoric.'' (Purdue University, 1978)
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=53311933 online edition]
* Woods, Randall B. "The Politics of Idealism: Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights, and Vietnam," ''Diplomatic History'' (2007) 31 (1), 1–18. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/J.1467-7709.2007.00599.X online at Blackwell-Synergy]

==Primary sources==
* Barrett David M. ed. "Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Papers: A Documentary Collection" (1997). Documents from LBJ Library and other archives.
* Beschloss Michael R. ed. ''Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963–1964'' (1997). Transcribed recordings of LBJ's phone calls.
* Beschloss, Michael R. ed. ''Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson's Secret White House Tapes, 1964-1965'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Reaching-Glory-Lyndon-Johnsons-1964-1965/dp/074322714X/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836030&sr=1-7 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Califano Joseph A., Jr. ''The Triumph & Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson'' (1991). By a cabinet member.
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Gallup, George H. ed. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971, volume 3: 1959–1971'' (1972). Summary of poll data.
* Johnson Lyndon B. ''The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency, 1963–1969'' (1971). LBJ's memoirs.
* ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson'' (10 volumes, GPO, 1965–70). All speeches and official statements.
* Reedy, George ''Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir'' (1982), ISBN 0-8362-6610-2. A memoir by the press secretary.

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

==External links==
* [https://librivox.org/author/11302 Works by Lyndon B. Johnson - text and free audio] - [[LibriVox]]

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Lyndon B.}}
[[Category:Texas]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

User:Reevestehsnek

2018-11-08T17:02:14Z

Reevestehsnek:

I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth.

And well here I am

==About Me==
Grew up in Detroit

Currently living in Florida

Currently enrolled at an Engineering program at an unnamed Florida University.

I love tinkering and building, alot

I Fix more than I break

----

User:Reevestehsnek

2018-11-08T16:58:57Z

Reevestehsnek:

I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth.

And well here I am

==About Me==
Grew up in Detroit
Currently living in Florida
Currently enrolled at an Engineering program at an unnamed Florida University.
I love tinkering and building, alot
I Fix more than I break

----

User:Reevestehsnek

2018-11-08T16:44:18Z

Reevestehsnek:

==About Me==
I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth.

Through out my teenage years I was always a moderate, Until I started to look for a job. Let me explain further.

So I look for a job around 3 years ago and no bodies hiring the economy right?

Parents get worried enough to call an at home therapist to "check" on me.

So Trump gets elected, plan to hang my self.

Next day a dish-washing(first jobs always pretty bad) job calls me and tells me "hey Im supposed to tell you to come in for an interview, but I'm telling you I got the job"

Shocked, I ask him why, how?

He says "the economy's took a turn for the better"See you on Monday and he hangs up

Type in "trumps views on the economy"

Listen to him talk out the current state of America

Its just like then I started to understand how and sorta why Obama taking focus of the middle
class forced my uncle out of his home Its why his wife left him.

And how trump for lack of any better knowledge available to me; helped get me my first job.

Like when I was being interviewed I could hear the dude being swore in as prez, I guess that was the moment I stopped believing the crap the taught me in schools.

So like here I am 3 years later looking at my first homes, maybe military work maybe a wife and kids.
----

Talk:Feminism

2018-11-08T16:05:51Z

Reevestehsnek:

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

I am trying to make this page compatible with a little Amazon Alexa Mod I cooked up, so far when It reads it,
There were multiple spelling errors, and when she spoke it sounded more like a rant then an actual informative conservative essay. Also the bulleted list doesn't play and the alexia device just stops playing, I believe the hardware isn't used to bullet points not being with-in heading or heading font so the Device just tries to reload the text in pure html using Wikipedias default source php (which I deleted to make my own.)
I understand that I need to be of higher standing, so can someone edit the article so it doesn't sound like a gigantic rant without any sources.
--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] [[User talk:Reevestehsnek|Talk]] 10:59, 8 November 2018 (EST)

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this article is no good, even though I wish it were true.
--[[User:corneliuscalvin|corneliuscalvin]] 7:56, 26 November 2012 (PDT)

:Can't talk now. of the World happening. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:01, 26 November 2012 (EST)

== No Christian feminism? ==

I think that this article would be served well if a section on [[Christian feminism]] was included. Maybe a new article on it would be better.[[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:That seems like a good idea, but an article on it would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view. But there's also the fact that the same term can have a different meaning for different people -- what one person considers Christian feminism can be completely different than what another person does. We would need to define the term clearly, but I think we'd be talking about second- and third-wave feminism, adherents of which have theologically and socially left-wing views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:47, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:::No, there is no requirement that a Conservapedia article discussing the topic of Christian feminism "would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view." There are no such requirements on content at Conservapedia, and no one, except perhaps Andy, has the authority to enforce such a requirement. All that is required is that "Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project". Though many of our members are not Christians and are not politically conservative, they are required to edit in a manner consistent with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. To require otherwise would turn this wiki into a Wikipedia-style "mobocracy" rather than a "best of the public" project.

:::The concept of feminism covers a lot of ground. There are conservative feminists, Christian feminists, and Republican feminists. Not all feminists subscribe to some of the silly excesses that one sometimes sees looking around on the internet and various media outlets. Many conservative feminists, for example, fully support encouraging girls to go into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.

:::So feel free to write sensible content on this topic. I look forward to reading it.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::::SamHB, they have found that promoting the idea that women are underrepresented in STEM fields and that this has to be corrected has the effect of telling women that STEM is not feminine/girly and thus women are more likely to avoid those fields. In other words, the policy is probably backfiring. See: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/how-promoting-stem-fields-women-can-backfire

::::Women tend to be more likely to be conformists and not mavericks.

::::Over and over again, liberals fail to take into account the unintended consequences of their social engineering! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::Once Christian denominations filly embrace the notion of female pastors, their memberships almost invariably spiral downward. That should surely be mentioned in relation to "Christian feminism".

::"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:12-13[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Mr. Guye was even talking about female pastors when he was talking about Christian feminism, just something akin to, say, the Suffragettes, many of whom were Christian women who would NEVER advocate the pill, let alone abortion. But yes, we probably should note that bit somewhere either way. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (EST)
::::What percentage of so-called "Christian feminists" believe that a wife is to obey her husband and that a husband is the head of the family? At least in its present form "Christian feminism" is just another endeavor to infect Christianity with unbiblical ideas. As far as the suffragette movement, I don't know if any of them were Christian women who held biblical Christianity views related to women. I do know that various suffragettes burned down churches.[https://www.christiantoday.com/article/suffrage-the-churchs-rocky-relationship-with-rebellion/67361.htm]

::::Christianity was at the forefront of various movements like abolition, child labor laws, etc. etc. Christendom is also known for its favorable views on the treatment of women (husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church, etc. etc.), but it is not known for leading the charge as far as feminism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2017 (EST)

:::::Well, I do know that Susan B. Anthony specifically condemned abortion and the pill and stated that would make women even more enslaved, and I do know that Christians also do not support abortion and the pill (in fact, among us Catholics, it's considered a mortal sin), so there's that to consider. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Talk:Feminism

2018-11-08T16:00:15Z

Reevestehsnek:

==article problems==
Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==South End Press==
My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==To much emphasis on abortion==
I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

::Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

:What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Excessive quotes? ==

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::::Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are ''about'' feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? [[User:Reaganite|Reaganite]] 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== The list of feminist views ==

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in [[America]]. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article:
- Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity.
- Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that.
- View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope.
- Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know.
- shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities?
- support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say?
- prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the ''bête noire'' of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

==Difficulty of defining feminism==

It's not easy to define [[feminism]]. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support [[equal rights]] to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which '''do not''' assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only [[Simone de Beauvoir]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Ridiculous Number of Quotes==

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article ([[Quotes by Radical Feminists]] and [[Quotes by Anti-Feminists]]) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

=="Ideological Edits"==

''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]''

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) '''in addition''' to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

''prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women''

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

''prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do''

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

''Quotes from fictional characters''

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

::This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children '''instead''' of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should '''support''' parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:

:*Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
:*Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
:*A series of quotes from a ''fictional character'' in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism

:If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. ''What Feminists believe is well known''. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.

:::::Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

*Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
::#The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child '''instead''' of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should '''support''' parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#Quotes from a ''fictional character'' should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
::Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?
*''believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by [[parents]] in raising children.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: ''believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children'' or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
:#There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
:#I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
:#There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
:Hope this clears it up. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"''? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists ''"prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"'', then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense (''"Specifically, modern feminists tend to"'' as opposed to ''"Specifically, modern feminist tended to"'') after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists ''"oppose single-sex schooling"'' is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism and choice==

Feminists say they '''only want choice''' while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we '''all''' know that [[Simone de Beauvoir]] condemned the [[choice]] of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the [[liberal deceit|pretense]] that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your [[freedom of press]] to tell lies. You can't do it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. [[Feminism]] plainly represents views about how women ''should'' act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book ''The Second Sex'' in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.

:::: Likewise here. The ''[[sine qua non]]'' of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name Changes==
The article says that feminists ''"refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes"''. However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be ''"feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry."'' Two relevant quotes from the article: ''"...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?"'' and ''"Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want."'' <ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==Question for the Editor--==
I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== Unsourced quotes ==

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan
I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:
*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan
I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.}}
I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:
*"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."
It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:
*"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"Ice and Fire" is a ''novel''. As in ''fiction''. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.
*Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
This quote is [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp attributed] to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:
*"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Quotations and flowing prose==

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
::It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper==

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

== Suggestion for separation ==

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- [[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 11:28, August 28 2011

== Reversion explained ==

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

and

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

== Enough quotations? ==

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --[[User:Marxian21|Marxian21]] 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== "No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" ==

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

:Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
::I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

==Full rewrite==

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see [[Chivalry]]), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting '''any''' help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose [[pornography]] and [[sexual slavery]], and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

I am trying to make this page compatible with a little Amazon Alexa Mod I cooked up, so far when It reads it,
There were multiple spelling errors, and when she spoke it sounded more like a rant then an actual informative conservative essay. Also the bulleted list doesn't play and the alexia device just stops playing, I think the hardware isn't used to bullet points not being with-in heading or font so the Device just tries to reload the text in pure html using Wikipedias default source php (which I deleted to make my own.)
--[[User:Reevestehsnek|Reevestehsnek]] [[User talk:Reevestehsnek|Talk]] 10:59, 8 November 2018 (EST)

== feminism and obesity ==

feminism and obesity: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Create a feminism and obesity article ==

Consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:The blog you want cited makes a ''huge'' leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this article is no good, even though I wish it were true.
--[[User:corneliuscalvin|corneliuscalvin]] 7:56, 26 November 2012 (PDT)

:Can't talk now. of the World happening. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:01, 26 November 2012 (EST)

== No Christian feminism? ==

I think that this article would be served well if a section on [[Christian feminism]] was included. Maybe a new article on it would be better.[[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:That seems like a good idea, but an article on it would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view. But there's also the fact that the same term can have a different meaning for different people -- what one person considers Christian feminism can be completely different than what another person does. We would need to define the term clearly, but I think we'd be talking about second- and third-wave feminism, adherents of which have theologically and socially left-wing views. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:47, 1 December 2017 (EST)
:::No, there is no requirement that a Conservapedia article discussing the topic of Christian feminism "would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view." There are no such requirements on content at Conservapedia, and no one, except perhaps Andy, has the authority to enforce such a requirement. All that is required is that "Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project". Though many of our members are not Christians and are not politically conservative, they are required to edit in a manner consistent with the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. To require otherwise would turn this wiki into a Wikipedia-style "mobocracy" rather than a "best of the public" project.

:::The concept of feminism covers a lot of ground. There are conservative feminists, Christian feminists, and Republican feminists. Not all feminists subscribe to some of the silly excesses that one sometimes sees looking around on the internet and various media outlets. Many conservative feminists, for example, fully support encouraging girls to go into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.

:::So feel free to write sensible content on this topic. I look forward to reading it.

:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::::SamHB, they have found that promoting the idea that women are underrepresented in STEM fields and that this has to be corrected has the effect of telling women that STEM is not feminine/girly and thus women are more likely to avoid those fields. In other words, the policy is probably backfiring. See: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/how-promoting-stem-fields-women-can-backfire

::::Women tend to be more likely to be conformists and not mavericks.

::::Over and over again, liberals fail to take into account the unintended consequences of their social engineering! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (EST)
::Once Christian denominations filly embrace the notion of female pastors, their memberships almost invariably spiral downward. That should surely be mentioned in relation to "Christian feminism".

::"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:12-13[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Mr. Guye was even talking about female pastors when he was talking about Christian feminism, just something akin to, say, the Suffragettes, many of whom were Christian women who would NEVER advocate the pill, let alone abortion. But yes, we probably should note that bit somewhere either way. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (EST)
::::What percentage of so-called "Christian feminists" believe that a wife is to obey her husband and that a husband is the head of the family? At least in its present form "Christian feminism" is just another endeavor to infect Christianity with unbiblical ideas. As far as the suffragette movement, I don't know if any of them were Christian women who held biblical Christianity views related to women. I do know that various suffragettes burned down churches.[https://www.christiantoday.com/article/suffrage-the-churchs-rocky-relationship-with-rebellion/67361.htm]

::::Christianity was at the forefront of various movements like abolition, child labor laws, etc. etc. Christendom is also known for its favorable views on the treatment of women (husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church, etc. etc.), but it is not known for leading the charge as far as feminism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2017 (EST)

:::::Well, I do know that Susan B. Anthony specifically condemned abortion and the pill and stated that would make women even more enslaved, and I do know that Christians also do not support abortion and the pill (in fact, among us Catholics, it's considered a mortal sin), so there's that to consider. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2018-11-08T15:24:41Z

Reevestehsnek:

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

::Aye. They got rid of money. TOS was actually started off as a protest of war and the US involvement in foreign affairs. That's why the "Prime Directive" is to not interfere with other cultures. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 20:38, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

: I could and should write a major critique of Star Trek as not only being anti-Conservative but anti-American. Also anti-Common Sense. Star Trek has many episodes that cater to the worries of the Left, from overpopulation to gay rights, but more so is that it is the future according to the Left. This is their idealized vision of the future. Where there is no famine, no poverty, no greed. Everyone works to "better oneself." What they don't explain is how and why. Liberalism, in various forms, is replete throughout the franchise. I could easily do an article about it. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:00, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Watch "The Trouble with Tribbles" and then tell me if they still used money or not. Harry Mudd is the epitome of greed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:24, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== King Of the Hill ==

Definitely conservative...its definitely the most realistic modern cartoon show and the Hill family is Republican (but not demonized for being so). [[User:RichDunbar|RichDunbar]] 23:50, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Storage Wars ==

Emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

: I would recommend removing this show, as a previous employee of the show has stated that the show is rigged, including giving people more money to allow higher (and more dramatic) bidding, as well as seeding the storage units with valuable items that the previous owners had not left behind. [[User:MackD|MackD]] 22:32, 20 February 2013 (EST)

== ''Pawn Stars'' ==

While it does prove the free market prevails, the show contains a great deal of profanity.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:04, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative humour ==

I am sorry if this is a silly (or repeated) question but how do you define conservative humour? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:My personal definition is humor that shows the irony and extreme folly in following [[liberal values|liberal beliefs]]. [[Conservative humor and satire resources|There's a lot of good stuff out there]]. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:28, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::Examples of conservative humor would include poking fun of [[political correctness]], demonstrating contradictions in liberal beliefs, establishing some accountability for liberal falsehoods, and overcoming liberal censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:03, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

==The Office==
I am not sure about this one. While Ryan is clearly a caricature of liberal hypocrite, the show is still mocking conservatives like Dwight and Angela (who is an conservative hypocrite). The best presented characters (Jim & Pam) are clearly liberals.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 23:43, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:We all know Steve Carell used to work on [[The Daily Show]], right?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::The lame ''Daily Show'' would never permit the conservative humor that Carell portrayed on ''The Office''. Could that be why he left the Daily Show for the Office???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Okey Dokey.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:45, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I would not be surprised to learn it if Steve Carell made more per episode of the office while he was on that show than he did his entire tenure at the daily show. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:14, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I thought that Jim was the main character. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:43, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I truly believe that this is a pro-liberal show. As DrDean said, Jim, a liberal, is the main character and he is depicted as a pretty nice guy.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:43, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

''The Office'' portrays homosexuality in a positive light and goes as far as to promote it (clear example: [http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-3/59065/gay-witch-hunt/episode-301/59066/ NBC.com] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0859444/ IMDb], an episode that includes a homosexual looking directly at the camera and saying "Kids, sometimes it pays to be gay.") --[[User:Ty|Ty]] 17:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Also, the early episodes do indeed indulge in "political correctness." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Day The very second episode] covers the subject, where Michael offends everyone and makes everybody uncomfortable because he keeps talking about race and holds others to racial stereotypes. The whole episode is about him being insensitive to other cultures and how it's bad. I'd also like to point out that Ricky Gervais, the creator of the original The Office and one of the big brains behind the American series is an atheist and probable liberal, and likely had much influence over development. Particularly in the earlier episodes.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you for refreshing our memories, Camille. The piece Gervais wrote in ''The Wall Street Journal'' of December 22, 2010 says it all: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031640102154156.html Why I Do Not Believe in a God] ("In a provocative essay at Christmas, a British writer and comedian explains why he remains an avowed atheist").--[[User:Ty|Ty]] 17:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Antiques Roadshow ==

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93814&page=1 Here is all I found on the fraud scandal]. A couple of dealers on the show were using their fame to acquire antiques below price. There are many dealers on the show. I suggest Antiques Roadshow be reinstated.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 11:54, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I couldn't fit it into the edit summary but apparently many of them would bring around objects that they already owned and have associates bring them in posing as their owners and give them high appraisals on air as well. I think that it should be removed from the list all together myself. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I see. I am a bit of a fan of the show. May I ask for a citation, please?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Undercover-Rescue-Worlds-Treasures/dp/0307461483/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 this book]--[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::@%#^#@ Every time I want to learn something I always have to read a book. Well, I'll take your word for it. I'm broke, and my library is far away.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The idea has already been discussed and you at least approved of a move. I further contributed that the show was created as a protest against the US' involvement in the Vietnam War. Roddenberry believed that the US should not be involved in the affairs of other countries as shown in the Prime Directive.[http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive]. It is also quite progressive in many ways including questioning values of all levels. The economy in Star Trek is entirely nonexistent with no money and exchanges instead fulfilled on the promise of self-betterment. I can go on if you like. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 22:12, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

:The views of a creator of a show are almost irrelevant. The point is what the show became, and your comments do not fully address the reasons given for its inclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

::Overall, the show may not have been conservative, but "created to protest Vietnam"? Uh, no - One of its most famous episodes, "The City on the Edge of Forever", by having uber-pacifism take hold in the 30s and keep us out of WWII long enough for the Nazis to win, effectively accused the protestors of treason ([http://www.depauw.edu/SFs/backissues/62/franklin62art.htm] and don't take my word for it: one of the producers was asked years later if that was deliberate and said that "of course" it was).--[[User:ArchModerate|ArchModerate]] 15:46, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

:::In all fairness regarding that last point, leftists are rather notorious for comparing the right to Nazis, and inferring that World War II is the only "good war," so that's not exactly going to mean much, especially regarding disproving whether his intention was to protest the Vietnam War. I had a film professor who actually did look up to World War II and how we rightfully denounced the Nazis, and he was far enough to the left that he was VERY anti-Vietnam (even going as far as to claim we only went to the country just to raid their tin resources) and even anti-Military, and although he claims he and his hippie friends weren't communists, he implied at one point when he was showing us battleship ptomkin or whatever that film was that he was going to indoctrinate us into the Soviet Union's ideals. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:44, 28 February 2016 (EST)

==7th Heaven==

I disagree. Although I'm grateful to have '''any Christian family at all''' portrayed on TV, it seemed more like liberal Christianity to me.

I watched the first 8 shows on DVD. In one show, the sister asks her brother to teach her how to kiss (on the lips), which is as near to [[incest]] as I've seen on TV as I can ever remember. In another show, they reprise the "black church burning" hoax.

I'd say it was a liberal feminist view of a protestant minister and his family. The mom was clearly the head of household and ruler of the roost. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:23, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== The funniest skits on SNL... ==
Isn't that getting really subjective? Funniest by who's standard? Yours? Are you the official gatekeeper for "conservative humor"? This whole entry is definitely more blog-like than encyclopedic. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:27, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

:Intrinsic humor exists - skits that are considered enormously funny by the vast majority of viewers. The identified skits surely qualify.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

== Emily Latella ==

Mocked how tv networks give equal time to opposing opinions which are ridiculous. With skits such as complaining about "no violins on TV before 10 PM" (it was really "violence on TV") or "why are we making Puerto Rico a steak? Pretty soon they'll want mashed potatoes!" Emily Latella frequently misunderstood what the debate was about and came up with ridiculous "counterarguments". She was obviously not a commentator who was supposed to be on the same level as those who were saying we ''shouldn't'' show violence on TV before 10:00 or that we ''should'' make Puerto Rico a state. And there was that skit where she criticized the "Eagle Rights Amendment" by questioning why we were allowing birds to hold jobs. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:30, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

== Star Trek redux ==

I know this issue has been discussed before, but by no stretch of the imagination is Star Trek a conservative show. Star Trek fell just short of being propaganda for a progressive secular humanist agenda. Which makes sense considering the show's creator was a progressive atheist secular humanist, and his personal beliefs were woven into the very fabric of the show. Would a conservative show have a future where the United States no longer exists as a sovereign nation but instead is part of a one world government? And would a conservative have that one world government in turn be a socialist government that was an eager participant in a United Nations style Federation of Planets? Would a conservative place the HQ for the Federation in San Francisco!? Would a conservative write a show where religion (if portrayed at all) was shown in a negative light? Do bible believing Christians believe in Vulcans? The list goes on and on. From the show's advocacy of socialism and multiculturalism to Captain Kirk's "relaxed" sexual morality. So unless any compelling evidence to the contrary is presented, I'll remove it from the list. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 16:44, 14 January 2013 (EST)

:Certainly true of the Original Series (and the Next Generation was even worse), but Deep Space 9, made after the militant atheist creator had died, portrays religion (specifically the Bajoran one) in a clearly positive light.--[[User:ArchModerate|ArchModerate]] 15:46, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

::Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and possibly Enterprise can probably stay on here, but Star Trek and The Next Generation, definitely not.
::There is one question, though. I'm probably a bit clueless regarding this, so forgive me for asking, but how exactly does Star Fleet's HQ being in San Francisco indicate anything about politics, much less it being of the left? There have been conservative elements in there, believe it or not. For starters, the March for Life back in 2011. There was also a law that explicitly violated homosexual marriages, and the mayor and clerk got into deep trouble as well. And besides, there are a few conservative shows that are set in very liberal cities. Just look at Blue Bloods, for example: The series is set in New York City, probably one of the most liberal cities out there, yet it actually espoused strongly conservative values via the Reagan family, or at the very least libertarian values.
::I'm a bible-believing Christian, but I wouldn't necessarily rule out the existence of Vulcans or aliens. Space is a vast area, and I find it hard to believe God would make most of the universe lifeless save for Earth, so I'm not exactly sure that's evidence about the show being leftist. The bit about the USA no longer existing as a sovereign nation but instead being part of a one world government that was socialistic in nature and acts more like a United Nations in the form of the Federation of Planets, and religion, IF portrayed or even mentioned at all, is denigrated, and the overall promotion of socialism, multiculturalism, and even relaxation of sexual morality (Captain Kirk's infamous escapades is one notable example) certainly disqualifies TNG and even TOS from even being remotely conservative and if anything more likely liberal. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:05, 28 February 2016 (EST)

== No Duck Dynasty? ==
I'm not a huge fan, but i would have bet my last dollar it would have shown up here on this list, even though most of the situations seem to be manufactured.
:To whoever suggested this, your wish was granted somewhere along the way. And I concur that it should make the list. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 11:33, 9 February 2018 (EST)

== Breaking Bad ==

I would consider it a conservative show, at least more liberal than conservative. The negative effects of Walt's double life are always shown (especially in the latter seasons the gentle Libertarian meth cook being needlessly murdered, the poor kid on the dirtbike being shot, the death of family and the destruction of his home and surviving family members). The business and drug usage/manufacturing is not glamorized. Walt becomes (by most people's standards) the villain very early on. Also to mention how the character of Jesse is shown early on to be much more soft than let on and how the more he gets involved in the criminal activities the more disgusting he realizes it is. There may be more examples, but that is what I've noticed.
One could argue that Walt not having good health insurance is liberal as it is extremely unrealistic given his profession, but it could also simply be a plot device.

″==Last man Standing==

Even though the main character is conservative he has a liberal daughter on the show and a lesbian daughter on the show it should be moved to the maybe a conservative show section--[[User:Wallywally|Wallywally]] ([[User talk:Wallywally|talk]]) 20:28, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Yes, he has a liberal daughter, but her beliefs are usually shown in negative light. Also, he does not have a lesbian daughter. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

==Everybody loves Raymond==

I think this show should be added as its a medium level conservative show at least add it to the maybe section.--[[User:Wallywally|Wallywally]] ([[User talk:Wallywally|talk]]) 20:29, 15 January 2016 (EST)

== South Park/Beavis and Butthead ==

[[King Conservative]] just added [[South Park]] and [[Beavis and Butthead]], [[South Park]] being on our [[Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows]] list. Anyone else think we should remove them?--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

I totally agree that they should be removed from this list. [[South Park]] was once removed from our [[Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows]] list, for being more of a libertarian show than a liberal one. As for [[Beavis and Butthead]] I honestly don't think that belongs on this list either and should be removed.--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:56, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Okay, I'm taking them down.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Samurai Jack ==

How about the show Samurai Jack? It shows good values like honor, courage, and never giving up, and it has a powerful good vs. evil message throughout the show along with redemption. But if not, then maybe it can be in the debatable section.--[[User:Wildfire93|Wildfire93]] ([[User talk:Wildfire93|talk]]) 23:04, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

==Absolutely Fabulous-debatable at best==
I can't see how ''Ab Fab'' (as most people know it as) made the cut. Yes, Edina and Patsy seem to fail at everything they do, but they have no intention of giving up their hard partying lifestyles. Also in the "Morocco" episode Saffron was sold into slavery, and at the end it is '''''strongly''''' hinted that she had given up her virginity to the young Muslim man she passes. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 11:36, 9 February 2018 (EST)

==7th Heaven==

I see this show as primarily liberal, at least the first 8 episodes, which I binge-watched a few years ago. One example was the reference to the hoax of black church arsons during the Clinton era (see [[Black church-burning hoax]]). The show referenced the hoax as '''true''', although [[Michael Fumento]] is famous for exposing it as a hoax.

Also, the family is completely dominated by the mother - who '''occasionally''' lets her husband put his foot down, but only under protest. I wouldn't call that conservative.

Can someone point out their top 10 list of conservative values demonstrated in this show? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

:Next time, try to edit your original post to mention this.

:As far as 7th Heaven, I'll probably move it to debatable, as it still has plenty of conservative elements of it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:37, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2018-11-08T07:47:39Z

Reevestehsnek:

Facebook

2018-11-08T06:59:04Z

Reevestehsnek:

[[Image:Newfacebooklogo3.jpg|thumb|Facebook logo|right]]
'''Facebook''' (stylized '''facebook''') is a [[social networking]] website founded on a hidden [[liberal]] agenda that profits by exploiting personal information in users' profiles, by advertising, and by giving a platform for liberals to open fire on [[conservative]] leaders and ideals. Users can spend, or indeed waste, their time on it by uploading pictures (typically of themselves or their pets), by gossiping about others, by talking to friends, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a [[busybody]]. Facebook use is often correlated with underachievement in school and disruption of interpersonal relationships, such as marriage or friendships.
<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/facebook-dumber-study-shows-users-social-networking-site-grades-article-1.363026 ''Does Facebook make you more dumb?'']</ref> For many young people, Facebook use replaces healthier activities and social gatherings.

"Social networking" is an inaccurate term for the site because Facebook is typically a poor substitute for real social networking. One survey shows that Facebook feeds narcissistic tendencies<ref>[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2009.0257 ''Survey Says Facebook Feeds Narcissism'']</ref>

Other studies done have shown that using Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school, plus a substantial percentage of marital problems and an increase in psychological disorders in youth.<ref>[http://thetechjournal.com/internet/facebook-is-the-new-cause-of-divorce.xhtml#ixzz1OmdIs3rN Facebook is the new cause of divorce, The Tech Journal, December 23, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://technorati.com/social-media/article/facebook-linked-to-psychological-disorders-in/ Facebook Linked To Psychological Disorders In Teens]</ref> [[Liberal]]s nevertheless flock to it presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive. Activities on Facebook have caused people to be fired from their jobs or, indeed, rejected from being hired by new employers.

Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users who can also post similar items to the page.

Facebook is based in Palo Alto, [[California]]. The name of the site is based on the paper facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community.<ref>[http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook]</ref>

As of the closing of its second business quarter of 2017, Facebook has more than 2 billion registered business and personal accounts, 83 million of which are known fakes.

==Origins==
Facebook was founded in February 2004 by [[Harvard]] sophomores [[Mark Zuckerberg]], Chris Hughes, Dustin Moskovitz, and Eduardo Saverin, with help from Andrew McCollum. By December 2004, after expanding the site to other universities, the number of registered users exceeded one million. In August 2005 Facebook obtained the domain name facebook.com and dropped the "the" from the site's name.

==2010==
A feature film was made about the origins of Facebook, called ''The Social Network'', and the mainstream media heavily advertised it. The film did not meet expectations at the [[Academy Awards]] and was number one in America for only a few weeks. Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the creation of film and said that it was more Hollywood storytelling than reality.

It has been known among Silicon Valley technology companies that Facebook has been luring away [[Google]] employees to the extent that Google is now offering bonuses for staying with the company. On October 15, 2010, Facebook announced the release of a new email client. Internally referred to as Titan, the media has dubbed it a "Gmail Killer". Zuckerberg insists it is not a head-to-head competitor of Google's Gmail service; rather, it will be more of an instant messaging service.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/15/gmail-beware-facebook-unveils-e-mail-service/ E-MAIL WAR: Facebook Launches 'Gmail Killer' -- AOL Jumps In, Too, FOX News, November 15, 2010]</ref>

==Liberal policies==
The world's largest online social network added civil unions and domestic partnerships to the list of relationships that its users can pick from to best describe their romantic status. The [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] had lobbied for the policy adoption. The option is only available to Facebook users in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/facebook-adds-support-sex-civil-unions Facebook Adds Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Fox News, February 18, 2011]</ref>

Facebook takes the extremist liberal view that gender is more than just male and female. Users can choose 58 types of custom genders to identify from.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/ Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users, ABCNews, February 13, 2014]</ref>

==Political influence==
Zuckerberg has involved himself in politics in the 2016 presidential race. He has publicly called out positions held by [[Donald Trump]] as wrong. Facebook employees have asked if they should try to stop a Trump presidency.<ref>[http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990 Facebook Employees Asked Mark Zuckerberg If They Should Try to Stop a Donald Trump Presidency, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016]</ref>

Facebook has declared it will never use its product to influence how people on the platform vote.<ref>[http://gizmodo.com/facebook-says-it-doesnt-try-to-influence-how-people-vot-1771276946?rev=1460755179651 Facebook Says it Doesn't Try to Influence How People Vote, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016]</ref>

In 2012, Facebook developed a tool called 'voter megaphone' raising questions about its use and ability to influence elections. Facebook secretly tampered with 1.9 million user’s news feeds.

Facebook tampered with news feeds in 2010 during a 61-million-person experiment to see how Facebook could impact the real-world voting behavior of millions of people.<ref>[http://fowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization]</ref>

98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 presidential election.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/684/994/Facebook_self_appointed_arbiter_of_free_speech_tells_Tea_Party_no_more_organizing.html Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing, Before It's News, June 2, 2011]</ref>

==Christian Presence==
Liberal pages aside, the presence of Christianity on Facebook is overwhelming. A quick and simple search reveals that the main Christianity page has more members than all the atheist pages combined.

==Conservative Groupings==
While liberalism appears to be the dominant political agenda behind Facebook's staff, this has not stopped conservative groups and pages forming. The [[Conservative Party]] as well as the [[Tea Party Movement]] have created pages. A search of the pages reveals that, when comparing the "likes" system on Facebook, both the Tea Party and the Tea Party Patriots dominate more liberal pages such as "Gay Marriage USA" and even the political ideology page "Liberal".

==Censorship and harassment by Facebook==
Ongoing censorship and harassment by Facebook are documented at [http://www.facebookcensorship.com facebookcensorship.com] with screenshots. Also documented is the wholesale destruction of groups that took some people years to build by Facebook's deleting all of the members. Facebook then deleted the discussion areas from "pages" to further their control and censorship. Despite its censorship, some left-wing activists claim that Facebook has not gone far enough in censoring opposing viewpoints.<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (April 22, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-policies-upset-bot/ Thumbs down: Facebook’s hate speech and censorship policies no easy fix]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 23, 2018.</ref>

Facebook temporarily banned Fox News reporter Todd Starnes for not being a liberal, giving the reason that his "politically incorrect" post violated community guidelines.<ref>[http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/06/29/fascist-facebook-bans-fox-reporter-todd-starnes-for-politically-incorrect-nra-post/ Fascist Facebook bans Fox reporter Todd Starnes, FireAndreamitchell.com, June 29, 2013]</ref> Facebook has censored other conservatives,<ref>Ciaccia, Chris (April 9, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/facebook-reconsiders-unsafe-for-community-tag-on-pro-trump-diamond-and-silk-videos-after-fox-friends-appearance.html Facebook reconsiders 'unsafe for community' tag on pro-Trump Diamond and Silk videos after Fox & Friends appearance]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref> including the conservative news organization [[Voice of Europe]] simply for reporting on conservative opposition to immigration and Islam in Europe, political points of view Facebook deems "offensive."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (April 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/09/facebook-punishes-conservative-news-site-criticizing-mass-migration/ Facebook Punishes Conservative News Site for Criticizing Mass Migration]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref> In April 2018, Facebook blocked conservative activist [[Pamela Geller]] after she posted an Associated Press article on Muslim anti-Semitism in Germany, though the organization later lifted the block.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (April 27, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/27/facebook-blocks-pamela-geller-reporting-muslim-anti-semitism-germany/ Facebook Blocks Pamela Geller (Again!) for Reporting on Muslim Anti-Semitism in Germany]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 28, 2018.</ref> In June 2018, it permanently banned Generation Identity, an identitarian movement that seeks to uphold Europe's traditional culture, due to "extremist content."<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (June 24, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/24/censorship-entire-european-identitarian-movement-permanently-banned-from-facebook/ Censorship: Entire European Identitarian Movement Permanently Banned From Facebook]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 24, 2018.</ref>

In early 2018, following the revelation that the now-defunct data mining firm Cambridge Analytica had inappropriately acquired about 50 million users' personal information around the time of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Facebook changed its algorithm, aiming to resolve countless privacy issues. However, this also resulted in [[conservative media]] sources being disfavored by the site compared to [[mainstream media]] sources.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (April 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/09/report-establishment-media-soaring-on-facebook-conservative-media-in-decline-following-algorithm-change/ Report: Establishment Media Soaring on Facebook, Conservative Media in Decline Following Algorithm Change]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref>

Studies have found that Facebook, among other social media platforms, engage in censorship.<ref>Haverluck, Michael F. (March 16, 2018). [https://onenewsnow.com/media/2018/03/16/facebook-algorithm-kills-conservative-news-feeds-boosts-lefts Facebook algorithm kills conservative news feeds, boosts left's]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved August 28, 2018. See also:
*Duke, Selwyn (August 28, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/29900-google-is-not-a-search-engine-twitter-and-facebook-aren-t-social-media Google Is Not a Search Engine; Twitter and Facebook Aren’t Social Media]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 28, 2018.</ref>

==Privacy issues==
Facebook's Privacy Policy is continuously changing. This is not for the benefit of the users but to the monetary value they represent to advertisers. Due to the size of Facebook, all kinds of data on users' habits are monitored. In fact, the U.S. government can peek at user's lives behind the scenes if it so chooses.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/13-year-old-boy-questioned-secret-service-facebook-posting/?test=latestnews 13-Year-Old Boy Questioned by Secret Service Over Facebook Posting, Fox News, May 17, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html Feds mine Facebook for info, STLToday.com, April 25, 2011]</ref> Facebook claims your personal information is not for sale. They make the case that it is anonymously collected data, thereby protecting your privacy. Third parties develop applications to run on top of Facebook. Users' privacy is effectively in the hands of unknown organizations. The below examples include what information is on display by every user.

* The first 6 months of 2013, Facebook shared personal data with the U.S. Government about 39,000 Facebook users.<ref>[http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/08/just-peachy-facebook-shared-personal.html?m=0 JUST PEACHY: Facebook shared personal data of users a mere 26 thousand times in the first six months of 2013], [[Doug Ross]], August 27, 2013</ref>
* The [[NSA]] paid several tech companies, including Facebook, millions of dollars to cover the cost of spying on Americans.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid NSA paid millions to cover Prism compliance costs for tech companies, The Guardian, Augist 22, 2013]</ref>
* 6 million Facebook members had their data exposed after management found a glitch that inadvertently shared personal contact details with other members.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57590528-93/facebook-bug-exposed-contact-info-of-6m-users/ Facebook bug exposed contact info of 6M users, CNET.com June 21st, 2013]</ref>
* Many users post their full address, e-mail address, birthday, and telephone number, and these can be available to their entire network (and, in reality, anyone with the ability to use a computer with Internet access). This information in the wrong hands can be used for purposes of phishing, stalking, or even identity theft.
* Some universities have begun to use students' pages to investigate underage drinking and other violations of university policy. This is very possible, since university faculty and staff can sign up for the same network as their students through their campus e-mail account.<ref>[http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref>
*The so-called "news feed" has aroused some discomfort among Facebook users, as it displays all changes and status updates from their friends by default.
*The "wall" feature allows a user to post a message to another user which remains on their profile page. This posting is viewable to everyone who can view the page (which is pretty much the entire world), and shows up on the news feed for all friends of both the sender and the recipient by default.
*As with Google ads, Facebook collects profile information, and places ads on the page that reflect the user's personal information. This resulted in one man logging into his Facebook account, and seeing his wife's photograph appear in an advertisement for a dating website.<ref>[http://www.kvoa.com/news/husband-finds-wife-in-facebook-singles-ad/] Husband finds wife in facebook singles ad</ref>
*The privacy settings on Facebook give users a false sense of security and encourage people to post valuable personal information that could be used for malicious ends. As with other social networks, Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no [[hacking]] experience. Instead, Facebook actually ''encourages'' young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see.<ref>
[https://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/myspace_torrent This is why only a fool would trust any social networking platform to keep any information private]</ref>
* In early 2018, it was revealed that the now-defunct data mining firm Cambridge Analytica had inappropriately acquired about 50 million users' personal information around the time of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Zuckerberg testified before Congress and announced that he would change Facebook's algorithm, aiming to resolve countless privacy issues.

As a free service, it is reasonable to say that the users of facebook are the product, rather than the consumers. As Andrew Lewis is credited with saying, "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." This concept is not new, but it is still valid even though it was originally introduced in reference to television.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=gI_jNL7PN2QC&lpg=PA104&dq=tv%20you%20are%20the%20product&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q=tv%20you%20are%20the%20product&f=false]</ref> Information is valuable to advertisers, since they can use it in targeted marketing. Facebook, like other social media services, makes use of the personal information provided to users to sell advertisements.

==Initial monetary value==
It is rumored that Facebook generates around $1 million per week in revenue.<ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/04/26/facebook-goes-beyond-college-high-school-markets/ "Facebook goes beyond college and high school markets"]</ref>
In September 2006, [[Yahoo]] began talks to acquire Facebook for as high as $1 billion. In October, Google allegedly offered $2.3 billion.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/10/first-youtube-now-facebook-rumors-circulate "First Youtube, Now Facebook: Rumors Circulate"]</ref> All outside offers have been rejected. 2009 estimates put a net value of $6.5 billion.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10285409-36.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 Facebook stock trading open; valuation $6.5 billion] CNET News, July 13, 2009</ref> 2010 estimates of the privately held company put the value at $14 billion.<ref>[https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/20/facebook-valued-at-14-billion-on-secondmarket/ Facebook Valued At $14 Billion On SecondMarket, TechCrunch.com, January 20, 2010]</ref>

In 2011, [[Goldman Sachs]] invested $500 million in Facebook. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley was put in charge of an initial public offering of Facebook stock in 2012. The company went public at $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-idUSBRE84L06920120522 Insight: Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO, Reuters.com, May 22, 2012]</ref> As of August 2012, the company was trading down at $20 per share, a loss of $50 billion in value. As of January 2013, the stock rebounded slightly and is trading at $30 per share, however this still represents a loss of $25 billion in value.
It is now possible to message the founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for approximately $100.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57563563/facebook-testing-$100-charge-to-message-zuckerberg/ Facebook charging $100 to send a message to founder Mark Zuckerberg]</ref>

As tech stocks vastly increased in value in the mid-2010s, however, so did Facebook. It gained hundreds of billions of dollars in [[market capitalization]] as investors shifted from low-interest bonds into the [[NASDAQ]].

== See also ==
* [[Social media]]
* [[Twitter]]
* [[MySpace]]
* [[Google Plus|Google+]]
* [[Gab.ai (website)|Gab.ai]] (conservative alternative to twitter)
* [[Donald Trump and social media]]

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
*[http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/israel-project-video-facebook-biased Israel Project Video: Is Facebook Biased?]
*[http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=175839 The increasing amount of personal information that can been gleaned by computer programs that track how people use Facebook]
*[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/fashion/weddings/chris-hughes-sean-eldridge-weddings.html Chris Hughes married his partner Sean Eldridge.] The gay co-founder of Facebook.
*[http://www.facebookcensorship.com/ Political and religious censorship and harassment by Facebook]

[[Category:Online Social Networking]]
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Facebook

2018-11-08T06:57:57Z

Reevestehsnek: Just added some references

[[Image:Newfacebooklogo3.jpg|thumb|Facebook logo|right]]
'''Facebook''' (stylized '''facebook''') is a [[social networking]] website founded on a hidden [[liberal]] agenda that profits by exploiting personal information in users' profiles, by advertising, and by giving a platform for liberals to open fire on [[conservative]] leaders and ideals. Users can spend, or indeed waste, their time on it by uploading pictures (typically of themselves or their pets), by gossiping about others, by talking to friends, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a [[busybody]]. Facebook use is often correlated with underachievement in school and disruption of interpersonal relationships, such as marriage or friendships.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/facebook-dumber-study-shows-users-social-networking-site-grades-article-1.363026<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/facebook-dumber-study-shows-users-social-networking-site-grades-article-1.363026 ''Does Facebook make you more dumb?'']</ref> For many young people, Facebook use replaces healthier activities and social gatherings.

"Social networking" is an inaccurate term for the site because Facebook is typically a poor substitute for real social networking. One survey shows that Facebook feeds narcissistic tendencies<ref>[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2009.0257 ''Survey Says Facebook Feeds Narcissism'']</ref>

Other studies done have shown that using Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school, plus a substantial percentage of marital problems and an increase in psychological disorders in youth.<ref>[http://thetechjournal.com/internet/facebook-is-the-new-cause-of-divorce.xhtml#ixzz1OmdIs3rN Facebook is the new cause of divorce, The Tech Journal, December 23, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://technorati.com/social-media/article/facebook-linked-to-psychological-disorders-in/ Facebook Linked To Psychological Disorders In Teens]</ref> [[Liberal]]s nevertheless flock to it presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive. Activities on Facebook have caused people to be fired from their jobs or, indeed, rejected from being hired by new employers.

Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users who can also post similar items to the page.

Facebook is based in Palo Alto, [[California]]. The name of the site is based on the paper facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community.<ref>[http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook]</ref>

As of the closing of its second business quarter of 2017, Facebook has more than 2 billion registered business and personal accounts, 83 million of which are known fakes.

==Origins==
Facebook was founded in February 2004 by [[Harvard]] sophomores [[Mark Zuckerberg]], Chris Hughes, Dustin Moskovitz, and Eduardo Saverin, with help from Andrew McCollum. By December 2004, after expanding the site to other universities, the number of registered users exceeded one million. In August 2005 Facebook obtained the domain name facebook.com and dropped the "the" from the site's name.

==2010==
A feature film was made about the origins of Facebook, called ''The Social Network'', and the mainstream media heavily advertised it. The film did not meet expectations at the [[Academy Awards]] and was number one in America for only a few weeks. Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the creation of film and said that it was more Hollywood storytelling than reality.

It has been known among Silicon Valley technology companies that Facebook has been luring away [[Google]] employees to the extent that Google is now offering bonuses for staying with the company. On October 15, 2010, Facebook announced the release of a new email client. Internally referred to as Titan, the media has dubbed it a "Gmail Killer". Zuckerberg insists it is not a head-to-head competitor of Google's Gmail service; rather, it will be more of an instant messaging service.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/15/gmail-beware-facebook-unveils-e-mail-service/ E-MAIL WAR: Facebook Launches 'Gmail Killer' -- AOL Jumps In, Too, FOX News, November 15, 2010]</ref>

==Liberal policies==
The world's largest online social network added civil unions and domestic partnerships to the list of relationships that its users can pick from to best describe their romantic status. The [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] had lobbied for the policy adoption. The option is only available to Facebook users in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/facebook-adds-support-sex-civil-unions Facebook Adds Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Fox News, February 18, 2011]</ref>

Facebook takes the extremist liberal view that gender is more than just male and female. Users can choose 58 types of custom genders to identify from.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/ Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users, ABCNews, February 13, 2014]</ref>

==Political influence==
Zuckerberg has involved himself in politics in the 2016 presidential race. He has publicly called out positions held by [[Donald Trump]] as wrong. Facebook employees have asked if they should try to stop a Trump presidency.<ref>[http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990 Facebook Employees Asked Mark Zuckerberg If They Should Try to Stop a Donald Trump Presidency, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016]</ref>

Facebook has declared it will never use its product to influence how people on the platform vote.<ref>[http://gizmodo.com/facebook-says-it-doesnt-try-to-influence-how-people-vot-1771276946?rev=1460755179651 Facebook Says it Doesn't Try to Influence How People Vote, Gizmodo, April 15, 2016]</ref>

In 2012, Facebook developed a tool called 'voter megaphone' raising questions about its use and ability to influence elections. Facebook secretly tampered with 1.9 million user’s news feeds.

Facebook tampered with news feeds in 2010 during a 61-million-person experiment to see how Facebook could impact the real-world voting behavior of millions of people.<ref>[http://fowler.ucsd.edu/massive_turnout.pdf A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization]</ref>

98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 presidential election.<ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/684/994/Facebook_self_appointed_arbiter_of_free_speech_tells_Tea_Party_no_more_organizing.html Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing, Before It's News, June 2, 2011]</ref>

==Christian Presence==
Liberal pages aside, the presence of Christianity on Facebook is overwhelming. A quick and simple search reveals that the main Christianity page has more members than all the atheist pages combined.

==Conservative Groupings==
While liberalism appears to be the dominant political agenda behind Facebook's staff, this has not stopped conservative groups and pages forming. The [[Conservative Party]] as well as the [[Tea Party Movement]] have created pages. A search of the pages reveals that, when comparing the "likes" system on Facebook, both the Tea Party and the Tea Party Patriots dominate more liberal pages such as "Gay Marriage USA" and even the political ideology page "Liberal".

==Censorship and harassment by Facebook==
Ongoing censorship and harassment by Facebook are documented at [http://www.facebookcensorship.com facebookcensorship.com] with screenshots. Also documented is the wholesale destruction of groups that took some people years to build by Facebook's deleting all of the members. Facebook then deleted the discussion areas from "pages" to further their control and censorship. Despite its censorship, some left-wing activists claim that Facebook has not gone far enough in censoring opposing viewpoints.<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (April 22, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-policies-upset-bot/ Thumbs down: Facebook’s hate speech and censorship policies no easy fix]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 23, 2018.</ref>

Facebook temporarily banned Fox News reporter Todd Starnes for not being a liberal, giving the reason that his "politically incorrect" post violated community guidelines.<ref>[http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/06/29/fascist-facebook-bans-fox-reporter-todd-starnes-for-politically-incorrect-nra-post/ Fascist Facebook bans Fox reporter Todd Starnes, FireAndreamitchell.com, June 29, 2013]</ref> Facebook has censored other conservatives,<ref>Ciaccia, Chris (April 9, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/facebook-reconsiders-unsafe-for-community-tag-on-pro-trump-diamond-and-silk-videos-after-fox-friends-appearance.html Facebook reconsiders 'unsafe for community' tag on pro-Trump Diamond and Silk videos after Fox & Friends appearance]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref> including the conservative news organization [[Voice of Europe]] simply for reporting on conservative opposition to immigration and Islam in Europe, political points of view Facebook deems "offensive."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (April 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/09/facebook-punishes-conservative-news-site-criticizing-mass-migration/ Facebook Punishes Conservative News Site for Criticizing Mass Migration]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref> In April 2018, Facebook blocked conservative activist [[Pamela Geller]] after she posted an Associated Press article on Muslim anti-Semitism in Germany, though the organization later lifted the block.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (April 27, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/27/facebook-blocks-pamela-geller-reporting-muslim-anti-semitism-germany/ Facebook Blocks Pamela Geller (Again!) for Reporting on Muslim Anti-Semitism in Germany]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 28, 2018.</ref> In June 2018, it permanently banned Generation Identity, an identitarian movement that seeks to uphold Europe's traditional culture, due to "extremist content."<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (June 24, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/24/censorship-entire-european-identitarian-movement-permanently-banned-from-facebook/ Censorship: Entire European Identitarian Movement Permanently Banned From Facebook]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 24, 2018.</ref>

In early 2018, following the revelation that the now-defunct data mining firm Cambridge Analytica had inappropriately acquired about 50 million users' personal information around the time of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Facebook changed its algorithm, aiming to resolve countless privacy issues. However, this also resulted in [[conservative media]] sources being disfavored by the site compared to [[mainstream media]] sources.<ref>Bokhari, Allum (April 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/09/report-establishment-media-soaring-on-facebook-conservative-media-in-decline-following-algorithm-change/ Report: Establishment Media Soaring on Facebook, Conservative Media in Decline Following Algorithm Change]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 9, 2018.</ref>

Studies have found that Facebook, among other social media platforms, engage in censorship.<ref>Haverluck, Michael F. (March 16, 2018). [https://onenewsnow.com/media/2018/03/16/facebook-algorithm-kills-conservative-news-feeds-boosts-lefts Facebook algorithm kills conservative news feeds, boosts left's]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved August 28, 2018. See also:
*Duke, Selwyn (August 28, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/29900-google-is-not-a-search-engine-twitter-and-facebook-aren-t-social-media Google Is Not a Search Engine; Twitter and Facebook Aren’t Social Media]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 28, 2018.</ref>

==Privacy issues==
Facebook's Privacy Policy is continuously changing. This is not for the benefit of the users but to the monetary value they represent to advertisers. Due to the size of Facebook, all kinds of data on users' habits are monitored. In fact, the U.S. government can peek at user's lives behind the scenes if it so chooses.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/13-year-old-boy-questioned-secret-service-facebook-posting/?test=latestnews 13-Year-Old Boy Questioned by Secret Service Over Facebook Posting, Fox News, May 17, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html Feds mine Facebook for info, STLToday.com, April 25, 2011]</ref> Facebook claims your personal information is not for sale. They make the case that it is anonymously collected data, thereby protecting your privacy. Third parties develop applications to run on top of Facebook. Users' privacy is effectively in the hands of unknown organizations. The below examples include what information is on display by every user.

* The first 6 months of 2013, Facebook shared personal data with the U.S. Government about 39,000 Facebook users.<ref>[http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/08/just-peachy-facebook-shared-personal.html?m=0 JUST PEACHY: Facebook shared personal data of users a mere 26 thousand times in the first six months of 2013], [[Doug Ross]], August 27, 2013</ref>
* The [[NSA]] paid several tech companies, including Facebook, millions of dollars to cover the cost of spying on Americans.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid NSA paid millions to cover Prism compliance costs for tech companies, The Guardian, Augist 22, 2013]</ref>
* 6 million Facebook members had their data exposed after management found a glitch that inadvertently shared personal contact details with other members.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57590528-93/facebook-bug-exposed-contact-info-of-6m-users/ Facebook bug exposed contact info of 6M users, CNET.com June 21st, 2013]</ref>
* Many users post their full address, e-mail address, birthday, and telephone number, and these can be available to their entire network (and, in reality, anyone with the ability to use a computer with Internet access). This information in the wrong hands can be used for purposes of phishing, stalking, or even identity theft.
* Some universities have begun to use students' pages to investigate underage drinking and other violations of university policy. This is very possible, since university faculty and staff can sign up for the same network as their students through their campus e-mail account.<ref>[http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref>
*The so-called "news feed" has aroused some discomfort among Facebook users, as it displays all changes and status updates from their friends by default.
*The "wall" feature allows a user to post a message to another user which remains on their profile page. This posting is viewable to everyone who can view the page (which is pretty much the entire world), and shows up on the news feed for all friends of both the sender and the recipient by default.
*As with Google ads, Facebook collects profile information, and places ads on the page that reflect the user's personal information. This resulted in one man logging into his Facebook account, and seeing his wife's photograph appear in an advertisement for a dating website.<ref>[http://www.kvoa.com/news/husband-finds-wife-in-facebook-singles-ad/] Husband finds wife in facebook singles ad</ref>
*The privacy settings on Facebook give users a false sense of security and encourage people to post valuable personal information that could be used for malicious ends. As with other social networks, Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no [[hacking]] experience. Instead, Facebook actually ''encourages'' young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see.<ref>
[https://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/myspace_torrent This is why only a fool would trust any social networking platform to keep any information private]</ref>
* In early 2018, it was revealed that the now-defunct data mining firm Cambridge Analytica had inappropriately acquired about 50 million users' personal information around the time of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Zuckerberg testified before Congress and announced that he would change Facebook's algorithm, aiming to resolve countless privacy issues.

As a free service, it is reasonable to say that the users of facebook are the product, rather than the consumers. As Andrew Lewis is credited with saying, "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." This concept is not new, but it is still valid even though it was originally introduced in reference to television.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=gI_jNL7PN2QC&lpg=PA104&dq=tv%20you%20are%20the%20product&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q=tv%20you%20are%20the%20product&f=false]</ref> Information is valuable to advertisers, since they can use it in targeted marketing. Facebook, like other social media services, makes use of the personal information provided to users to sell advertisements.

==Initial monetary value==
It is rumored that Facebook generates around $1 million per week in revenue.<ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/04/26/facebook-goes-beyond-college-high-school-markets/ "Facebook goes beyond college and high school markets"]</ref>
In September 2006, [[Yahoo]] began talks to acquire Facebook for as high as $1 billion. In October, Google allegedly offered $2.3 billion.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/10/first-youtube-now-facebook-rumors-circulate "First Youtube, Now Facebook: Rumors Circulate"]</ref> All outside offers have been rejected. 2009 estimates put a net value of $6.5 billion.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10285409-36.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 Facebook stock trading open; valuation $6.5 billion] CNET News, July 13, 2009</ref> 2010 estimates of the privately held company put the value at $14 billion.<ref>[https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/20/facebook-valued-at-14-billion-on-secondmarket/ Facebook Valued At $14 Billion On SecondMarket, TechCrunch.com, January 20, 2010]</ref>

In 2011, [[Goldman Sachs]] invested $500 million in Facebook. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley was put in charge of an initial public offering of Facebook stock in 2012. The company went public at $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-idUSBRE84L06920120522 Insight: Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO, Reuters.com, May 22, 2012]</ref> As of August 2012, the company was trading down at $20 per share, a loss of $50 billion in value. As of January 2013, the stock rebounded slightly and is trading at $30 per share, however this still represents a loss of $25 billion in value.
It is now possible to message the founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for approximately $100.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57563563/facebook-testing-$100-charge-to-message-zuckerberg/ Facebook charging $100 to send a message to founder Mark Zuckerberg]</ref>

As tech stocks vastly increased in value in the mid-2010s, however, so did Facebook. It gained hundreds of billions of dollars in [[market capitalization]] as investors shifted from low-interest bonds into the [[NASDAQ]].

== See also ==
* [[Social media]]
* [[Twitter]]
* [[MySpace]]
* [[Google Plus|Google+]]
* [[Gab.ai (website)|Gab.ai]] (conservative alternative to twitter)
* [[Donald Trump and social media]]

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
*[http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/israel-project-video-facebook-biased Israel Project Video: Is Facebook Biased?]
*[http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=175839 The increasing amount of personal information that can been gleaned by computer programs that track how people use Facebook]
*[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/fashion/weddings/chris-hughes-sean-eldridge-weddings.html Chris Hughes married his partner Sean Eldridge.] The gay co-founder of Facebook.
*[http://www.facebookcensorship.com/ Political and religious censorship and harassment by Facebook]

[[Category:Online Social Networking]]
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Feminism

2018-11-08T06:28:47Z

Reevestehsnek:

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideological movement from the early 19th and 20th century that strives to make women socially, economically, and spiritually self reliant. '''Neo-Feminism''' or '''Third Wave Feminism'''(which will be colloquially referred to as Feminism) is an uncouth ideological movement that strives to make men and women socially, economically, and sexually equal by providing substantial support for women only. Most Neo-Feminist rhetoric advocates for the total neutralization of genders and most Militant Neo Feminist promote the Gender Spectrum. It also claims to strive to make both men and women equal but is almost always in direct opposition to any sort of male support <ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>; due to the misplaced and antiquated feminist ideal of Patriarchy(the). Most forms of Neo Feminism oppose homemaking, child-rearing, and [[homeschooling]] by women or any traditionally female dominated industry or past-time. Feminism also heavily promotes the sexual, physical, and mental participation by women in predominantly male activities regardless of any females life pursuit or interest.
Most prominent modern feminists support abortion.
Futhermore there are certain attributes common to many western feminists which include a haughty sense of entitlement, despite benefiting from a life of relative privilege.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

On a personal level feminism can disrupt marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominant in elitist universities, many large corporations, and competitive women's team sports.

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are enforcers of [[liberal censorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived from Communist doctrine and both have a great deal in common, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

Militant Neo-Feminist Conduct and Belief's:
* With-in media, show the portrayal of men in particular, the white heterosexual male, as inherently evil, dumb or incompetent, and the women, in particular those that adhere to the preachy feminist agenda, as inherently good, smart or competent (note that this conflicts with gender equality).
** Furthermore, some movies and television programs, in addition to depicting men as evil or incompetent, can at times depict women who adhere to traditional values including but not limited to, promoting traditional family values, as well as valuing traditional feminine nature in an extremely demeaning manner, usually implying that they are at best brainless bimbos who are demeaned and slaves to their masters, often with the implication that traditional femininity is considered inherently bad(which goes against the concept of women having free choices how to pursue their life).
* Believe that marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* Often condemn the God-given paternal roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]].
* Push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* Distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* Promote a imperfect ideal that women always choose a career minded goal over family.<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/ ''Is 'Opting Out' The New American Dream For Working Women?'']</ref>
* Object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
*Mocking traditional [[marriage]] and Belittling and shirking other women who desire to raise a family or praticipate in traditional gender activities<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html Nightline Transcripts, "Making Hillary Clinton an Issue"], [[PBS]]</ref><ref>"Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"]</ref><ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* want to remove significant distinctions between how men and women dress, such as preferring that women wear pantsuits rather than dresses,<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref> even though many feminists also want women to dress immodestly. In some cases, most infamously during the Miss America protests in 1968, feminists have even gone as far as to indicate that female products such as makeup, bras, and heels were "instruments of oppression."

* Refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names. | If you read the New York Times wedding pages the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* conveniently pretend that there are no meaningful differences between men and women when that advances [[liberal]] causes (e.g., advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines, to weaken the U.S. military), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).
* do not want gender equality; they want power for the female Left.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017 were urged by the Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Annie Laurie Gaylor is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor’s husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]

{{liberalism}}

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

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Feminism

2018-11-08T06:27:29Z

Reevestehsnek:

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' is an ideological movement from the early 19th and 20th century that strives to make women socially, economically, and spiritually self reliant. '''Neo-Feminism''' or '''Third Wave Feminism'''(which will be colloquially referred to as Feminism) is an uncouth ideological movement that strives to make men and women socially, economically, and sexually equal by providing substantial support for women only. Most Neo-Feminist rhetoric advocates for the total neutralization of genders and most Militant Neo Feminist promote the Gender Spectrum. It also claims to strive to make both men and women equal but is almost always in direct opposition to any sort of male support <ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/18/male-university-of-york-student-commits-suicide-on-day-his-university-ditches-international-mens-day-after-pressure-from-feminists/ "Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s day"]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow ''Feminists protesting Men's Rights talk pull fire alarm, 4/4/2013'']</ref>; due to the misplaced and antiquated feminist ideal of Patriarchy(the). Most forms of Neo Feminism oppose homemaking, child-rearing, and [[homeschooling]] by women or any traditionally female dominated industry or past-time. Feminism also heavily promotes the sexual, physical, and mental participation by women in predominantly male activities regardless of any females life pursuit or interest.
Most prominent modern feminists support abortion.
Futhermore there are certain attributes common to many western feminists which include a haughty sense of entitlement, despite benefiting from a life of relative privilege.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

On a personal level feminism can disrupt marriages, relationships, child-rearing, education and the workplace. The feminist ideology is particularly dominant in elitist universities, many large corporations, and competitive women's team sports.

Feminism was originally an expression used by [[suffragettes]] – who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> – to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, at the height of what was termed Second-wave feminism, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole. Today in the midst of what is called Third-wave feminism, some feminists are enforcers of [[liberal censorship]] and [[political correctness]], at the expense of [[free speech]]. In fact, much of what drove Second-wave feminism and what now drives Third-wave feminism was derived from Communist doctrine and both have a great deal in common, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).<ref>[https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/09/04/feminism-is-communism/ Feminism is Communism]</ref><ref>[http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/hubbard1.htm Feminist family politics and their roots in Communist ideology]</ref>

Most modern feminists:

* want to remove significant distinctions between how men and women dress, such as preferring that women wear pantsuits rather than dresses,<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref> even though many feminists also want women to dress immodestly. In some cases, most infamously during the Miss America protests in 1968, feminists have even gone as far as to indicate that female products such as makeup, bras, and heels were "instruments of oppression."
* do not want gender equality; they want power for the female Left.<ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* in movies and television, portray the men, in particular, the white heterosexual men, as inherently evil, dumb or incompetent, and the women, in particular those that adhere to the feminist agenda, as inherently good, smart or competent (note that this conflicts with gender equality).
** on that note, some movies and television programs, in addition to depicting men as inherently evil, dumb, or incompetent, can sometimes depict women who adhere to more traditional femininity, including promoting traditional family values and traditional marriage (see below), as well as expressing more traditional gender roles and natures, in an extremely demeaning manner, usually implying that they are at best brainless bimbos and at worst gold-diggers (women who only marry someone for their wealth), often with the implication that traditional femininity is considered inherently bad (which goes against the concept of women having free choices regarding how to pursue their life).
* conveniently pretend that there are no meaningful differences between men and women when that advances [[liberal]] causes (e.g., women and men equally in military combat, to weaken the U.S. military), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups).
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes).
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably "patriarchal".
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html Nightline Transcripts, "Making Hillary Clinton an Issue"], [[PBS]]</ref><ref>"Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"]</ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking.<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women.
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines.
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]].
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am references, please], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/e02pmeur6q4yb/World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a career over raising children without any remorse.
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone describing [[Northern Europe|Northern]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who have more feminine traits and embrace their femininity.

Note that women who have to take over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simone-veil-holocaust-survivor-and-abortion-pioneer-dies-at-89</ref>

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA), whose proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts illegally ordered the issuance of homosexual "marriage" licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court illegally ordered taxpayer-funded abortion based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (Third-wave feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to abortion. This stance is opposed by many conservatives. Third-wave feminism has been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. [https://www.amazon.com/WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849577]

==Feminism and reason==

''See also:'' [[Liberals and reason]]

{{quotebox|"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." — Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, (New York Basic Books, 1994), p.116 [http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/] }}

Feminists in the [[Swedish]] government on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2017 were urged by the Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to wear the compulsory [[hijab]] while visiting Iran. The pleas were ignored. The Jihad Watch website reported,<ref>[https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/swedens-first-feminist-government-dons-hijabs-in-iran ]</ref>
{{Quotebox|Sweden’s female leaders have not only betrayed all women who fight for equality globally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

== Atheist feminism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheist feminism]]
[[File:Annie Laurie Gaylor.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Annie Laurie Gaylor is an atheist feminist. She is co-president of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].

Gaylor’s husband, [[Dan Barker]], who heads the organization along with her, is usually the person invited to speaking engagements, despite her longer tenure as the organization’s leader and her many books on atheism.<ref>Bekiempis, Victoria (Summer 2011). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club "Why the New Atheism is a boys' club"]. Bitch Magazine, no. 51. Retrieved from September 26, 2011 edition of The Guardian/CommentaryIsFree.</ref>]]

[[Atheist feminism]] is a type of feminism whose advocates are [[Atheism|atheists]].

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/confirmed-mens-rights-activism-is-for-misogynists-without-god/ Confirmed: "Men’s Rights Activism" Is For Misogynists Without God], ''Raw Story''</ref> YouTube's most popular atheist is [[TheAmazingAtheist]] who is a men's rights activist. Another popular YouTube atheist [[Thunderf00t]] is very critical of feminism within atheism (See also: [[Atheism plus]]).

=== Atheist movement, feminism and schism within atheism ===

Within the [[atheist movement]] post [[New Atheism]] and the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy, there has been a lot of conflict between [[Atheism|atheists]] concerning feminism. One of the results of the conflict was the new atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] losing a lot of public support and support among the irreligious (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]).

=== Atheist feminism and its view of religion ===

See: [[Atheist feminism and religion]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]

{{liberalism}}

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

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYo1ewgG94M The Truth About 'Rape Culture'] by Paul Joseph Watson
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

User:Reevestehsnek

2018-11-08T06:22:51Z

Reevestehsnek:

Don't ban me but I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth.

Through out my teenage years I was always a moderate, Until I started to look for a job. Let me explain further.

so I look for a job around 3 years ago and no bodies hiring the economy right?

Parents get worried enough to call an at home therapist to "check" on me.

So Trump gets elected, plan to hang my self.

Next day a dish-washing(first jobs always pretty bad) job calls me and tells me "hey Im supposed to tell you to come in for an interview, but I'm telling you I got the job"

Shocked, I ask him why, how?

He says "the economy's took a turn for the better"See you on Monday and he hangs up

Type in "trumps views on the economy"

Listen to him talk out the current state of America

Its just like then I started to understand how and sorta why Obama taking focus of the middle

class forced my uncle out of his home why his wife left him.

And how trump for lack of any better knowledge available to me; helped get me my first job.

Like when I was being interviewed I could hear the dude being swore in as prez, I guess that was the moment I stopped believing the crap the taught me in schools.

So like here I am 3 years later looking at my first homes, maybe military work maybe a wife and kids.

----

User:Reevestehsnek

2018-11-08T06:21:25Z

Reevestehsnek: Created page with "Don't ban me but I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth. Through out my teenage years I was always a moderate, Until I started to look for a job. Let me expla..."

Don't ban me but I was gonna vote for Hillary until she opened her mouth.
Through out my teenage years I was always a moderate, Until I started to look for a job. Let me explain further.
so I look for a job around 3 years ago and no bodies hiring the economy right?
Parents get worried enough to call an at home therapist to "check" on me.
So Trump gets elected, plan to hang my self.
Next day a dish-washing(first jobs always pretty bad) job calls me and tells me "hey Im supposed to tell you to come in for an interview, but I'm telling you I got the job"
Shocked, I ask him why, how?
He says "the economy's took a turn for the better"See you on Monday and he hangs up
Type in "trumps views on the economy"
Listen to him talk out the current state of America
Its just like then i started to understand how and sorta why Obama taking focus of the middle class forced my uncle out of his home why his wife left him.
And how trump for lack of any better knowledge available to me; helped get me my first job.
Like when I was being interviewed I could hear the dude being swore in as prez, I guess that was the moment I stopped believing the crap the taught me in schools.
So like here I am 3 years later looking at my first homes, maybe military work maybe a wife and kids.

----

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-11-08T05:53:41Z

Reevestehsnek:

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Hello um 1990sguy Im not a spammer or troll I just want to edit this page so I can mod the Alexa device to read out conservapedia instead of wickedpedia.

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==
I didnt find a way to send a message here so i assume, once its a wiki, that im supposed to edit this page when i want to contact you. Im not sure if i comment on the articles talk page, would it inform you?
I wanted to ask you about your edits of Finland's article, noticed few grammar mistakes that you corrected but didnt get why the day of independence cant be on the page? Then wanted to mention hat the the Lapps is a same name as Sami, so its like mention the same ethnic group twice.
Then i wondered why the population of the capital city shouldnt be mentioned?
The name of party Perussuomalaiset is in english "the Finns Party" not "True Finns".
There is also few smaller issues i will come back to them later. So would be nice to have a talk about these. Thanks. -Karjalainen

:First off, thank you for editing, and for messaging me here! The problem with the date of independence is that the infobox does not have a parameter (at least that I'm aware of) for the date of independence. This means that if you add the date of independence like what you did, the infobox will not actually show it to whoever is reading.

:I was not aware that the Lapps and Sami are the same. I will fix this. I will also fix the part about the Finns Party, since you're also right on this.

:I just didn't think it was necessary to list the population of Helsinki, especially since the population keeps changing and few editors are available to change it. But, if you want to add the population on the [[Helsinki]] article, you are free to do so.

:I noticed that you updated the economic information using Euros, rather than dollars. The reason why I changed it back is that most Conservapedia readers live in the United States, and the dollar is obviously what they use (and they probably don't know the exchange rate). We can mention the numbers in Euros, but we should also use dollars. Since I don't know the exchange rate, I did not add both.

:I hope all this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for answering.
I dont know if this info can be found but is CP based on the MediaWiki platfom? If yes, is it being updated when never versions come out?
Scrolling around some tutorial pages i found a template of countries where i took that "established" tag from, why does it exist if it doesnt show?
How do you edit the sources? I wanted to add but i dont see the other sources listed there?
Is there any plans to add to CP also other languages?
Is there a way to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ ? Would be nice to attrack also non-american readers and make this website even bigger and popular, maybe one day to replace wikipedia as the biggest.
I will write the issues concerning Finland on the talk page of Finland, please refer to there. -Karjalainen
:Sorry for the belated response. CP is based on the MediaWiki platform, but we use a different infobox than Wikipedia -- we didn't just copy and paste their infobox. We do update it, but I don't know how often.
:You can add sources by putting them in in between a tag like this <code><nowiki><ref>[source]</ref></nowiki></code>
:There are no plans to make CP in a different language that I am aware of, but I recommend asking Andy Schlafly, the site's owner here: [[User talk:Aschlafly]].
:Unfortunately, I do not know how to add both mi2/km2 or $/€ to the infobox.
:I will take a look at your message on the Finland talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (EDT)

== Five solas ==

Hearty thanks, 1990'sguy, for your assist with [[Five Solas]]! --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:I'll see what I can do. The [[Donald Trump achievements: Economic policy and labor]] (along with the trade sub-article) give a pretty good overview of his economic policies and the effects of those policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

==Contact==
I don't have yours, either. Use this: nobs315@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:07, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
:Mine is on my user page. You can verify there. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
==Capital Punishment==
By quoting Genesis 9:5 you are confusing what God is permitted to do versus what man may do and how man is to conduct himself in relation to his fellow man. It is also inaccurate to write that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of capital punishment when he directly called into question the teaching of "eye for an eye."[[User:Tulip Festival|Tulip Festival]] ([[User talk:Tulip Festival|talk]]) 19:02, 17 August 2018 (EDT)
:No, Genesis 9:5-6 clearly says that the just punishment for taking a human life is that one's own life be taken. The proportionate and just punishment for murder is not jail time, nor community service. You're confusing what the Bible says regarding personal conduct and governmental policy, which is not personal. I recommend you read these two links: [https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html][https://answersingenesis.org/culture/the-death-penalty-wdjb-not-wwjd/] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:15, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS update ==

As you probably saw, I have moved this list to: [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project]]. Thank you for your additions to the list...my apologies for adding your entries to the new page under may name. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to continue adding to that list. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks, and thanks for creating this list! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

== i try ==

More than a single sentence? Okay I can try. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::Sorry i have a disorder. I will try to add more. [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:39, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::See [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Tutoring avalible? By you? [[User:Knockforpeace|Knockforpeace]] ([[User talk:Knockforpeace|talk]]) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Read and follow all of the links provided at the very top of this talk page. That will help you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:09, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

== Logician account ==

It wasn’t a troll. Could you unblock it? Also, I removed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica because it’s supposedly recommended reading. Thing is though that it’s such dense and complicated symbolic logic that no one would actually be able to understand it. It shouldn’t be recommended reading. Anyway, thanks. [[User:Anaxagoras|Anaxagoras]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras|talk]]) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
:I will unblock the account (though I will procedurally block the "Anaxagoras" one), but do not remove the Principia Mathematica book. It may be dense and complicated, and it may be to the extent that laypeople can't understand it, but it should remain for those who can understand it and who will find it useful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:50, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: [[Kavanaugh smear]] article name change ==

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the Democrats are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

:::I have chimed in [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kavanaugh_smear&curid=150814&diff=1450439&oldid=1450438 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

== Re: Switzerland vs. Britain ==

I believe you have visited Switzerland.

Below is a post I made to some left leaning atheists/evolutionists.

Gentlemen,

Don't think I haven't noticed your silence on Swiss trains being more timelier than British trains. What's your excuse for British trains being less timelier than Swiss trains?

Just admit it. The [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html industrious and wealthy Swiss], who have one of the highest rates of creationism in Europe, have a better, wealthier and more efficient society than post Darwinism Britain.

By the way, deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lose all credibility!

=== Main page right post in question ===

'''The British recently had a hard''' time getting their trains to run on time.[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45572736]

According to [[Wikipedia]], "The Swiss rail network is noteworthy for its density, its coordination between services, its integration with other modes of transport, timeliness and a thriving domestic and trans-alp freight system."

Why can't [[Britain]], the fountainhead of [[Darwinism]], compete with [[Switzerland]] which is known for having one of the highest rates of [[creationism]] [[per capita]] in Europe?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/switzerland-beacon-of-european.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:I have dual Swiss citizenship, so yes, I have visited the country multiple times. For the record, some (not many, though) of my relatives there are biblical creationists. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

==Formatting of quotes==

Thanks for the {{tl|cquote}} thing - I had forgotten that template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome -- happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

== Trumpiantexan is a vandal ==

There's a Vandal called "Trumpiantexan" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:53, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

== Why you said this so.. ==

...'' I don't know if his pro-Marx comments actually make him a communist. He's your typical globalist/liberal European uniparty elite.'' It is not mine definition but more a true fact. Regards, [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)
:Most liberal/globalist European elites think the same way Juncker does. It would not be a good idea to label them all as communists. They have many of the same goals as communists, but there is some nuance between them (for example, different different tactics/methods, and Juncker and many of his friends are part of "liberal" or "center-right" parties, and seem to like big corporations). Either the "liberal" and "globalist" categories are enough (since liberals and globalists have many similarities with Marxists, like Juncker), or a new category is needed. I prefer the former, as it doesn't imply that liberalism and globalism are too different from Marxism and communism (different strands of the same thing, and the existing categories take the nuances into account). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== Cesar Sayoc Article==
Wouldn’t a person with prudent ethics be willing to discuss whether or not a new article should be deleted prior to deleting said article? Cesar Sayoc is dominating the headlines of America yet you say he is a ‘nobody’? Based on your reasoning the [[Lee Harvey Oswald]] article should be deleted immediately.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to CNN along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to CNN’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to CNN was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with Democrats -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Planned Parenthood is pretty extreme for a red-state Democrat who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several Democrats even have better ratings than him.
::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the Democrat Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

==Pinging==
I tried to ping you, but it didn't work. I typed {d{Ping|1990'sguy}d} (remove the d's, I added them here so it comes out as text). [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

== Troll ==

Eleonóra Dubiczki is defacing the page on Rightpedia. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:There's another one named Fiala, probably a sock of the same person. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:50, 3 November 2018 (EDT)