Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Keep Richard Around?

2007-03-28T01:08:43Z

Richard: /* '''Block:''' */

=='''Block:'''==
*I say take his Sysop privileges away and block him. He has proven useless for anything except an "interesting" talking point. I still see no reason why he is even ''that''. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard has proven that he is not here to be constructive. On the contrary, the only thing he intends to do is vandalize and discredit the site. I may be a liberal, but rule-breaking is a strict no-no. I would agree with an immediate and permanent ban. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: How am I a liberal. My positions: Strong national defense, low taxes, decrease the size of central government, phase out social security now (because I'm sick of paying it slightly less fast then they can spend it). However I also: Don't think it is the government's business to regulate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or who they enter a legal contract with, support mexican immigration, don't want the government to decide when where or how my kids pray or don't. I like Adams the best except for those two nasty little laws ;-) because he had strong principals and tried to stick by them (imperfect) and despite his strong religious views supported freedom of religion ("even Mohammedanism"). I don't really care for the war in Iraq but supported Afghanistan (Reagan and Roosevelt are two of my heros who can be summed up with the big stick but don't use it unless you have no choice methodology) but like 70% of Americans agree with me now... I am a centrist with libertarian leanings. That is the best I can be categorized.. Oh and PJ O'Rourke ("we demand nothing and we demand it now!") and Steven Colbert are great :-) You missed the script...simpleton singlesidedism is silly...and hence so are you :-) [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Keep:''' ==
I could see de-sysoping him (though personally I wouldn't do that), but he violated no Commandments. All his edits and articles were cited and factual. The fact that The Powers That Be willingly blinded themselves to what he was truly doing b/c he was a professed conservative should be your real concern, not Richard himself.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh definitely de-sysop! But he did not violate any rules. He exposed the bias of this site in that you wasn't banned for saying crazy things just because he called himself a conservative, but criticism is something we all have to live with.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok then, if that is the case, I suppose you are happy with the Wikipedia Bias page? We will de-Sysop Richard, but will not block him for the time being. I have to get hold of a bureaucrat before I can enforce this decision. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What about the wikibias who now?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dave up there. The real issues are that sysop status is given to people based on content and that we only want reliable sourcing and research when it comes to things that are not conservative/YECist. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-27T21:11:07Z

Richard:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# I heard a story on the news about an american company sending international mercenary troops into Iraq. [[Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Why is there something rather than nothng?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Should the Dies committee be reconvened to combat terrorism?]]
Feel free to add additional debate topics

User talk:PF Fox

2007-03-27T20:51:32Z

Richard:

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

User talk:MountainDew/Conservapedia Conservative List

2007-03-27T19:31:06Z

Richard: wikify (hope you don't mind). Thanks for doing this!

'''This is a list of suspected or confirmed conservatives on Conservapedia.'''

==Suspected Conservatives==

[[User:Aschlafly]] is heavily suspected of having conservative viewpoints.

==Confirmed Conservatives==

[[User:MountainDew]] is a confirmed conservative according to his userpage.

[[User:Richard]] is a confirmed conservative as well.

[[User:Ed Poor]]

Niger

2007-03-27T19:26:55Z

Richard: speling

Niger is a poor African country whose main export is [[uranium]].

Confederate States of America

2007-03-27T19:25:40Z

Richard: not slavery...states rights.

The '''Confederate States of America''' were an alliance of 11 southern [[America]]n states who fought against the Union states in the [[American Civil War]] (1861 to 1865). General [[Robert Lee]] led the Confederate forces into battle against the armies of the Northern states, led by [[Abraham Lincoln]]. The confederate states seceded from the North after threats of ending [[slavery]], which they viewed as a matter of [[states' rights]] that should not be enforced at the federal level.

The president of the Confederate States of America was [[Jefferson Davis]].

{{stub}}
[[Category:American Civil War]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-27T19:16:24Z

Richard: /* Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder */

{{semi-protect}}'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] (with substantial help in the beginning from [[Larry Sanger]]) on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. [[Conservapedia]] uses the wiki program made popular by Wikipedia. Content on Wikipedia is under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|Wikipedia Commons]]

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a search portal funded by Jimbo Wales.<ref>The Bomis portal has been criticized as "pornographic"</ref> Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Seigenthaler Hoax and Reaction of Wikipedia Editors==
In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler Sr, a journalist and an assistant to former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that stated:<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.
</blockquote>
In September 2005, a friend of Seigenthaler's discovered the Wikipedia entry and alerted Seigenthaler, whom then contacted the Wikimedia foundation to have the article corrected, however the false biography had remained on Wikipedia for many months.
Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt later discovered the prepetrator of the prank was Brian Chase, an acquaintance of Seigenthaler Sr.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> John Seigenthaler Sr later published an article in ''USA Today'' on the whole affair.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>

Instead of being apologetic, Wikipedia editors criticized Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly complaining of the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy" and finally downgraded in its stable version to "incident". Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrived 23 March 2007.</ref> becaue it catapulted it <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref> from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites, and gave it its first substantial publicity outside America.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Daniel Brandt controversy==
The Daniel Brandt biographical entry was created by SlimVirgin on 28 September 2005 so that the subsection of criticism could be removed from the Chip Berlet mainspace biography. On two occasions, once prior and once after, SlimVirgin stated she did not consider Daniel Brandt a credible source. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554] In August 2005 SlimVirgin and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangerdude Rangerdude] discussed the use of "scholarly" material cited to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates (PRA) on the Roots of Anti-Semitism talk page and had this exchange:

:"PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research....PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. ...WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: ''"A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a '''Socialist Workers' Party''' magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay."'' This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement.--SlimVirgin 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude only moments before debunked Berlet's scholarly credentials, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20212920&oldid=20187928] cited WP:RS on using extreme websites, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20246130] and then rejoined,
:"Curiously your example of the '''Socialist Worker's Party''' does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! --Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin then changed Official Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy to make Berlet appear mainstream and not an extremist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes]

Next an old dormant dispute between Brandt and Berlet from a decade and half ago was reignited. The two worked together for many years, but had a falling out in 1991; Brandt was quoted as an anonymous critic from a ''FrontPage magazine.com'' citation in Berlet's wiki entry, with these words,

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352]

Berlet expressed displeasure at the criticism and publicly named the "leftist writer";
:This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic ''Spotlight'' newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21]

Berlet wanted the criticism of him and his organization removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates#Fairness_and_Balance] On the same day the Daniel Brandt biography was created to cast Brandt and his organization as extremist using a guilt by association smear of being aligned with Holocaust denial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research#_note-0] Who was the source of the claim? A self published source, Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. According to the Introduction [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left] to the self published source, Berlet's allegation Brandt and his organization were aligned with Holocaust deniers first appeared two months earlier in September of 1991 in an ''extremist'' publication, the Marxist-Leninist ''Guardian''. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html] The ''Guardian'' newspaper, which at one time had a reporter, Wilfred Burchett, who participated in interrogations of American POWs in North Korean prison-of-war camps, is cited in a contemporaneous book from 1992 by the mainstream publisher ''Prometheus Books'' which is entitled, ''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America'', by John George, Laird Wilcox, ISBN 1-57392-058-4, as an extremist publication. See Chapter 9, pgs. 125-131. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp]

Added to all these violations of Official Wikipedia Policy is this event, Berlet citing himself and personally inserting potentially libelous and defamatory material from a questionable and self-published source into an article of a living person and fellow registered user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921]

Jimbo Wales echoed SlimVirgin's view that Brandt was not a "credible source", and told ''Editor & Publisher'',
:"I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all." [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]

After possible malicious intent of slander was being publicly discussed surrounding the events which lead to the creation of Brandt's entry, Wales comments to ''Editor & Publisher'' were removed from Brandt's bio under the "tabloid clause" of Reliable Sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=104935334]

Meantime, numerous Wikipedia Administrators have been caught in the crossfire of a drive-by smear against Brandt in an old leftist sectarian dispute none of them know anything about.

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

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

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

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

==Jimmy Wales' Denial that Larry Sanger was a Co-Founder==

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

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

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added.

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

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

== Parodies of Wikipedia ==

* The Uncyclopedia (which contains offensive material) parodies both Conservapedia and Wikipedia.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://icl-fi.org/english/wv/888/wikipedia.html 4th International Communist League's Criticism of Wikipedia]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Billy Graham

2007-03-27T19:08:04Z

Richard:

'''William "Billy" Franklin Graham''' is a prominent evangelical preacher. Mr. Graham has inspired over 210 million people in 185 countries around the world. <ref>http://www.dailyherald.com/suburbanliving/story.asp?id=295087</ref> <ref>http://www.billygraham.org/mediaRelations/bios.asp?p=1</ref>

{{stub}}

User talk:Reagan youth

2007-03-27T19:02:16Z

Richard:

For the love of God, if you insist on leaving tasteless Nazi phrases on your user page, at least learn [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_heil how to spell them]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The misspelling makes it that extra little special better. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I copied directly from http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/reaganyouth.html, but I'll make the change now [[User:Reagan youth|Reagan youth]] 23:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:please don't

I find this rather offensive...am I alone? [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Don't worry, you're not. As a German, I find the usage of "Sieg heil!" ''extremely'' offensive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I have deleted the offensive material. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 15:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jesse Helms

2007-03-27T19:01:12Z

Richard: /* Helms Party Switch */

== Bla ==

Jesse Helms was the most evil Senator of this time. He changed from Democrat to Republican. He liked to kill people. He murdered people. He was racist, homophobic and basically homocidal.

:Thats why he should have the best article at conservapedia!

== Thanks! ==

Thanks to the people who have started helping. I intend this as a starter stub, Helms's career was very long and complex so its hard to get it all. So keep it coming. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 02:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Helms Party Switch==

Helms didn't switch his party due to George McGovern. He became a Republican in 1970. McGovern didn't run for President until 1972.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, his mother's name was Ethel Mae. I'm also not entirely sure that it was particularly courageous to switch parties in 1970. Here's an article from 1970 from Time Magazine (specificially about Harry Byrd) talking about speculation that he'll become a Republican, and also pointing out other conservative southern Democrats who might switch, like John Stennis, Bill Archer, and Lester Maddox. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942209,00.html --[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Galifianakis playing "the race card", I don't entirely know what that means. He did joke about how long his name was, but if anyone played the race card, it was Helms, with his slogan "Jesse Helms: He's One of Us", which carried the implication that Galifianakis wasn't.

: Kindly read the citation in the article (pasted below):

"The presidential election offered excellent coattails to ride on. Helms allied himself with Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon, linking Galifianakis with the highly unpopular McGovern. Galifianakis saw a much different, and worse, kind of tarring at work. He accused the Helms campaign of using his Greek American ethnicity to imply that he was not a loyal U.S. citizen."

I shortened this to "race card" where a candidate says "oh you're just saying that because I'm XXXX-American" (nearly always with a hyphen). I think it was courageous to switch...there are people here who will still never forgive the Republican party for waging war against the south. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 15:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Reagan youth

2007-03-27T18:51:41Z

Richard:

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2007-03-27T18:43:29Z

Richard: /* Overall evaluation */

This article is horrendously written. Truly. Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it.
{|
| style="background:orange" | [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This comment was left by [[User:frijole|frijole]]. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US] license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==General discussion==

VENONA Files section should be a separate article in my view.

Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence ''from other'' sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extremely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparatus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.

:::Here an understanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to more or less perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law to the real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the persons' FBI file may have had some dirt or embarrassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in your file becomes public.

:::That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remains did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I would likewise say he did not. This infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and that info originated somewhere in the Army, so it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Let me give 3 illustrations how this theory works. Communist Party cells worked as ''cadres'' often using family members.

::::(1) Ruth Greenglass's testimony sent her brother and sister-in-law, Julius & Ethel (nee Greenglass) to the electric chair.

::::(2) Oppenheimer was a member of cadre that consisted of his wife, Kitty Harrison, and his brother Frank Oppenheimer.

::::(3) Alger Hiss, according to Venona, lead a group "largely consisting of his relatives", i.e. his wife Priscilla Hiss and brother Donald Hiss.

::::(4) Here's a forth; Flora Wolschin, and her parents, Maria Wicher and Enos Wicher were all Venona spies.

::::(5) Here's another; John Abt married Harold Wares widow. Abt was a KGB operative identified in Venona and Ware once headed the group Hiss, Chambers and Harry Dexter White all belonged to.

::::So it very often was a family affair. The FBI decided it would not use VENONA materials to prosecute cause that would reveal to the USSR that the US had broken its codes. The US was faced with two problems: (1) remove security risks, both known & unknown from sensitive jobs; (2) prosecute, if possible, using evidence ''other than'' Venona those known to be in the service of the KGB ''without disclosing in an open courtroom the nature of the proof''. But as a matter of priority, given the serious dangers at that time of the Soviet Union gaining nuclear know-how from American citizens, removing them from sensitive jobs ''was more of a priority'' than prosecuting for espionage. And there remained the problem that many code names had yet to be identified, i.e. the FBI knew they were there but didn't know who they were.

::::So this is were my theory of Hoover's relationship to McCarthy comes in. Hoover most probably held back the files on the prominent suspects involved in espionage activity, but often had files on relatives or close friends who in many instances also had been party members at one time though not necessarily invovled in espionage.

::::The closed door transcripts were released about four years ago. Some are quite interesting, others have remarkably shocking drivel, like it being revealed someone had once been arrested in a public mens room with another man. This sort of stuff, in a closed door hearing, smacks of strongarm intimidation tactics. Though I do not beleive McCarthy knew he was being used by Hoover this way. McCarthy probably got the idea from Hoover that whoever they were investigating was either the big fish or was gonna lead them to the big fish, probably not knowing the FBI had little more evidence other than a certain family member had once been a member of the open, or above ground party, and guilty of some embarassing stuff at one time. Needless to say on the other hand, these sort of intimidation tactics to get somebody to rat-out a family member who perhaps was facing the electric chair, by exposing in a public forum all sorts of things someone may not wish to have known, has generated the intense hatred for McCarthy that still fuses some people with anger at the mention of his name. But the story doesn't end there. There is moral responsibility on the part of cowards who knew the "conspiracy" was real, and let innocent people be abused while pretending to be victims themselves.

::::One final comment, the perception of the threat of nuclear war was very real, as was the perception the US government under both Truman & Ike (Dem & GOP) was covering something up. And yes, now we know they were covering up the fact the US was reading Soviet codes. But the real threat was to remove all known & suspected security risks.

::::As Moynihan said, "Ignorant armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Addendum: McCarthy being ridiculed for not have caught a single spy really should be regarded as a credit to keeping secret the VENONA program of reading Soviet codes. Pity such secrecy failed in keeping secret [[Atomic bomb]] secrets which led to the insane nuclear arms race of the [[Cold War]]. And the cost in domestic partisan warfare. [[Richard Nixon]] rose from an obscure backbencher to the Presidency by putting in jail the first General Secretary of the Hope of Mankind, i.e. [[United Nations]]. The vendetta to get Nixon for that is what [[Watergate]] is all about.

:: So how many innocent lives were ruined by McCarthy's false accusations? There are lots of articles that say that McCarthy did harm, but hardly any that specify the harm. If you can specify the harm, then go ahead. Just saying that he ruined people is worthless. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "ruined?" As far as I know, there is no point by point, alphabetical list of the names of people whose lives were badly affected by McCarthy's irresponsible accusations, but it's certain that careers were needlessly damaged, some of them ended. The people McCarthy injured include Reed Harris ( lost his job), Dr. Julius Hlavaty (long career in the NY public schools ended), and Raymond Kaplan (suicide). I don't know how many people were in Mr. Kaplan's family, but I'm pretty certain he had a wife and children, so their lives were undoubtedly pretty badly affected. And if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated, the list of damaged lives expands dramatically.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am looking for actual facts, not conclusory propaganda. Reed Harris resigned his government job. He was asked about writing an essay that favored Communists teaching in the schools. Raymond Kaplan was not accused of anything, and had not been called to testify. He was an engineer with knowledge of VOA transmitters not functioning properly, and he might have been called if he had lived. But how is McCarthy to blame? Are you saying that the Senate should not have been investigating the VOA transmitter failure? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::''"if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated"''
::Yes, we had these debates ''in extensio'' in Wikipedia. For example, Harry Dexter White who died three days after a HUAC hearing in August of 1948, nevertheless was a "victim of McCarthyism", nevermind the '''fact''' that he was (1) dead and burried when McCarthy waved his list of 57 Communists in February of 1950; (2) was dead and burried when McCarthy held hearings; (3) never testified before any Senate hearing chaired by Joseph McCarthy; (4) Joseph McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. Now, per Wikipedia's own policy of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AWT, no one ever produced any evidence Harry Dexter White "denied charges before a McCarty era hearing". I burried Mr. White umteen times only to have him resurrected to deny charges before a "McCarthy era hearing". In this instance, I would suggest Conservapedia implement Wikipedia's own policies which they steadfastly refused to do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that Harry Dexter White died shortly before McCarthy waved his famous "list" does not make him any less a victim of "McCarthyism" though I would not call him a victim of McCarthy himself. We still use the word "Boycott" to refer to what happened in Montgomery in the 1960s even though Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott had been dead for decades. I've also heard the word "Maverick" used to describe nonconformists who lived and died well before Samuel A. Maverick had his ranch in Texas and nonconformists who lived long after Mr. Maverick himself had died. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, those are good points. So the discussion has gone from writing an accurate historical narrative to "framing issues" for propaganda purposes. I think we need to establish facts (which I have an extensive contribution list in Wikipedia) and deal with propagating interpretive views of facts some other time. Richard Gid Powers 1995 book separates "irresponsible anti-communism" from "responsible anti-communism". The deliberate use of invidious pejoritives after users have been "politically profiled" in Wikipedia is something I do not think is practiced here. Here, by precedent, I hope we can write straight forward historical narritives and leave out conclusionary premises. It simply a matter of employing the historical method, not beginning with a conclusion we intend to end up with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Censure==
AmesG has repeatedly removed the actual grounds for censuring McCarthy, leaving the reader the false impression that McCarthy was censured for his anti-communist investigations. In fact he was exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges. McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insults to the committee that was trying to censure him. If there is some error in my description, then please address it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the actual Senate resolution that passed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.

:Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.

::Basically, McCarthy was "condemned" for name calling. My we've come along way, I routinely hear Seantors engage in invidious name calling of other Senators or the President on televsion. And many of McCarthy's detractors today have little more than name calling to impugn McCarthy with.

::As to discussing "McCarthyism" and its "victims", Venona evidence shows many "McCarthy vicitms" were not victims at all. ''In fact'', now we must judge the moral responsibilty of guilty parties who kept silent and allowed others to be victimized by their silence. This is as important an aspect of the investigation as anything else. If McCarthy was a demon witchhunter, those guilty parties who feign innocence and allowed others to be smeared, basically to save thier own tails, so to speak, are EQUALLY guilty of creating an atmosphere of "hysteria", or however you wish to characterize it. So this whole discussion really begins with examining Comintern activities which started about 1919, and about 1921 in the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What did the Venona Papers say about Annie Moss? Julius Hlavaty? Raymond Kaplan? Reed Harris?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rschlafly-- Facts ==

What happened to Reed Harris, Dr. Julius Hlavaty, and Raymond Kaplan is not "conclusory propaganda, but fact. Reed Harris was not just questioned, but repeatedly attacked by McCarthy for opinions he'd expressed as a student twenty one years before in a book about the commecialization of college sports, KING FOOTBALL. The book had included a defense of the right of Communists to teach. Do you seriously consider the statement "Communists have the right to teach" so outrageous that it calls for someone to be forced to resign from their job? As for Raymond Kaplan, his rather lengthy and detailed suicide note makes it plain that it was being called to testify before McCarthy's committee that terrified him. ""You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," he wrote. "I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can't take the pressure upon my shoulders any more." Given that Harris had been forced to resign for something he'd written more than two decades before, Kaplan's fear was not unfounded. And the VOA hearings were not just some sort of technical inquiry into why a transmitter malfunctioned. McCarthy's contention was that it was part of a dastardly Communist plot within the VOA, and his investigation included questioning witnesses about their church attendance and religious beliefs and purging VOA overseas libraries of such dangerously "subversive" authors as Dashiell Hammett and Theodore H. White. --PF Fox 13:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I do believe that it is fair game to ask a govt official about a pro-communist opinion that he expressed in a book. But my opinion is irrelevant. If it is somehow notable that McCarthy asked these questions, then go ahead and insert that into the article. However it is just false left-wing propaganda to say that McCarthy ruined any innocent lives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How is it "pro-communist" to say that communists have a right to teach? Are you pro-liberal? Do you think liberals have a right to teach? Does the fact that I think libertarians have a right to teach make me "pro-libertarian," even though I generally disagree vehemently with libertarians?

And yes, in the context of a discussion about McCarthy and what made him so unpopular, the fact that McCarthy got people fired, drove at least one man to suicide, needlessly ended the career of at least one popular and valuable teacher in the New York public school system, purged books by noted and important authors from VOA libraries and grilled people about their religious beliefs in hearings is "notable." Under what circumstances would it NOT be "false left-wing propaganda" to say that a politician had "ruined innocent lives" if not to say it about a politician who repeatedly impugned people's loyalty and ended their careers for simply having political beliefs he disliked? What would McCarthy have had to do to qualify in your mind as "ruining innocent lives?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: As I said, my opinion about whether public colleges should be promoting communism is irrelevant. I just want facts. McCarthy had no dislike for Kaplan's political beliefs, and did not drive him to suicide. Kaplan's suicide was all the more reason for McCarthy to investigate what VOA did. Whether McCarthy acted "needlessly" is a matter of opinion. Some people think that McCarthy did not do enough to uncover communists.
:I am looking for facts here, not just conclusory leftist opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you consider it a "fact" that believing communists have a right to teach makes you "pro-communist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to debate my personal definition of "pro-communist". The facts are that Harris published some communism-related opinions in a book, and McCarthy asked about those opinions. If asking that question was McCarthy's greatest sin, according to his leftist enemies, then go ahead and put it in the article. Just don't put in your leftist propaganda. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing unreasonable about asking you to define your terms. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: To answer your question, I was using the term "pro-communist opinion" in the sense of expressing an opinion in support of communists. Harris did that in his book. It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris belonged to the Communist Party or anything like that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does saying "Communists have the right to teach" qualify as an "opinion in support of communists" unless you equate supporting the rights of a group with supporting that group's aims?

: Expressing an opinion that Communists have a right to teach in the public schools is obviously expression an opinion in support of those Communists who want to teach in the public schools. McCarthy gave Harris an opportunity to explain his opinion. If you want to know more about Harris's opinion, read the transcripts instead of asking here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Joe Stalin, who CPUSA members served under, also "ruined innocent lives". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. What's your point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Comparing a mass murderer of 40 million people with someone who allegedly inspired somebody to commit suicide is a bit disportionate, don't you think? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Where and when did I compare McCarthy with Stalin?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:The same language "ruined innocent lives" can be applied to Joseph Stalin and to Joseph McCarthy. Let's not talk past each other. As to the question, "can a Communist teach in a public school?", what ''is'' the question? Can a government employee also be a member of the Communist party?, or can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold Communist ideology? Please be specific. No need to parse this junk anymore. Most of these people are dead, and we do have a record of facts now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafley's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

I think the question being posed when someone asks "can a Communist teach in a public school?" is pretty clearly "can a Communist teach in a public school." The answer, as far as I know, is "yes," since I am aware of no law that bars people from government service based on their politics. If there are some Red Scare era laws still on the books that bar Communists in this manner, I suspect they would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, any more than some past laws barring atheists from testifying or adopting children or making atheism a criminal offense, or defining Communist parents as legally unfit would stand up. The answer to your other question, "can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold communist ideology" is also a "yes." It also prompts the question of what you consider "communist ideology." I've seen advocacy of limited gun control, membership in the ACLU, and support for Howard Dean's run for the presidency described in that manner.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. So that gets to some of the specifics. I don't believe the question here is whether a person can teach today holding those views, and I agree with you on that. Holding those views and communicating them today in a classroom as doctrinal is different discussion for a different time and place. The question for this bio page is, Was it illegal for an employee of a local school district to hold CPUSA membership, as I understand the question to be. Merits of the law is an entirely different matter.

:Then I can assume we also may agree using the same language to describe McCarthy that has been used to describe a few recent despicable mass murderers in history is clearly over the top and out of bounds. Was McCarthy a monoster? I don't know, perhaps. Was he human? Yes. McCarthy is the godfather of two of Robert F. Kennedy's living children. Clearly, clearly, the depictions of McCarthy elsewhere as a subhuman, if not inhuman, or non-human really say more about McCarthy's detractors than the do McCarthy.

:An editor here in Conservapedia, who identifies himself as being 16 yrs old, told me Arthur Miller testified before McCarthy's Committee. Where did her learn that junk? These are the living lies I hope we can finally put an end to.

:Simply put, McCarthy was half right, and half wrong. Likewise many of McCarthy's critics were then, and remain, half right and half wrong. Let's not whitewash ''the facts that we do know now'', any further. "Ignorant Armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the question is, does getting someone fired and/or ending their teaching career qualify as "ruining" someone's life. I believe it certainly can. At the least it is a detriment. And I don't know why you assume "we may also agree" that saying "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" qualifies as a comparison to Joseph Stalin. I can only assume you missed my response, so I'll repeat it here and italicize it so you'll be sure to see it.:

''I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafly's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

''
There was an Arthur Miller mentioned during the McCarthy hearings, though I don't know of Miller himself actually being called before McCarthy. Given that he also called in Howard Fast for grilling, it wouldn't be surprising if he were. Miller did quite definitely get called before HUAC, however, and was convicted of contempt for refusing to name names. His play about the Salem Witch Trials, THE CRUCIBLE is a parable for McCarthyism, drawing some pretty biting parallels between the mentality behind Salem and the mentality behind much of the Red Scare.

The claim "McCarthy was right" presumes, by the way, that at issue was the premise that espionage was taking place. It should be noted that nobody during the Cold War, liberal or conservative, denied the existence of Soviet espionage. At issue was McCarthy's methods which, as I believe I've illustrated, were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody denied Soviet expionage?! There were plenty of leftists who denied that Alger Hiss or anyone else was a spy. I also don't agree that you have illustrated what you say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly the same as denying that espionage itself took place. And how have I not illustrated that McCarthy as reckless, irresponsible, and dishonest? I've described instances where he lied, accused, and misrepresented. The declassification of the Venona papers don't change that behavior. In fact, Venona shows that the majority of those he named as "disloyal" did not deserve the treatment he gave them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Support from Ann Coulter ==

What the hell is this? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? Ha Ha Ha you guys are insane. -- --[[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Technical problem==
I created the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] which links from the mainspace but still shows up as a red link. Can anybody help? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==205 or 206==
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26, 1957]

:''Based on the investigations from [Venona project] information we have identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activities who have at one time been active in the United States or which activity has had some United States ramifications. Of this number we already had received information from other sources including espionage involvement on the part of 87 of these persons. However, 119 persons were not previously known to us as being involved in espionage and have been identified through investigation in this case.

''A chart explaining these figures in more detail is set out.

<center>''SOVIET ESPIONAGE AGENTS IN [VENONA] CASE</center>

{| border=1
! ''Total Number Involved in Soviet Espionage''
! ''206''
|-
! ''Number Previously Known to Us from Other Information''
! ''87''
|-
! ''Number Not Previously Known to Us
! 119 ''206''
|-
! ''Soviet Officials Not Now in the United States''
! ''61''
|-
! ''Other Persons Not Now in the United States
! ''40''
|-
! ''Persons Deceased''
! ''11''
! ''(Burd, Duggan, Golos,a. Ivancic, Kournakoff, Lauterbach, Malisoff, Sabatini, Staple, White,b. Briggs)''
|-
! ''Persons Now Cooperative with Us''
! ''14''
! ''(Bentley ,c. D. Greenglass,d. R. Greenglass, Black, Elitcher, Gold,e. Menaker, Miller, Moczulski, Morros,f. Jack Soble, Myra Soble, York, [redacted])''
|-
! ''Persons Who Have Been Prosecuted''
! ''15''
! ''(Brothman, Coplon, Fuchs,g, Gold, Greenglass, Gubitchev,h. Moskowitz, J. Rosenberg, E. Rosenberg, Slack, Sobell, Jack Soble, Myra Soble, Perl, Hiss)''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Silvermaster Network''
! ''29''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Mocase''
! ''5''
|-
! ''Other Persons Now in United States''
! 43 218
|-
! ''Less Those Counted Twice, Described Below''
! 12 ''206''
|}
==Pointers==
*''Restoring talk page comments removed by'' [[User:PF Fox]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304]
'''Let me make three pointers to concerned editors & Admins about the army of sockpuppets who will attack this article''':

(1) they will try to define [[McCarthyism]] and the "McCarthy era" as dating from 1948 onwards;

(2) they will try to define "the Second Red Scare" as dating from 1948 onwards & make it synonymous with McCarthyism.

(3) they will impugn and slander the sources of information in absence of any valid rebuttal.

This blatant propagandizing which they view as a high priority should be resisted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where am I guilty of #1?

Where am I guilty of #2

Where am I guilty of #3?

And what did I post that was untrue? I'd really like to know.

As I said earlier, if I removed comments it was inadvertant.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There was a section between where you edited and what you deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304] The comment removed specifically refered to an army of sockpuppets who will attack this page. One such sockpuppet attack [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=44074&oldid=44069] just occurred as you were adding a volume of content, some of which has been deprecated by its own authors. Pardon me, but this Wiki ''deja vu'' all over again.

:While the page is protected you can place your proposed inclusions here on Talk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't remember even seeing a comment about sockpuppets, so if I removed such a comment it was accidental. And I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet" here. My understanding is that it's an online term referring to a post under an alias by someone already taking part in a discussion. I don't do that and I hope you aren't implying that I do.

You still haven't explained what I posted that was untrue, or why you removed, not only that small reference to Schrecker, but references to actual transcripts of the hearings and an audio. I'd really like an answer. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is an obvious effort by sockpuppets to disrupt editing. You are welcome to propose language for inclusion here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest you add:

_____

It was McCarthy's charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence. During his famous February 9th, 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

And ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”[6]
The State Department denied McCarthy’s claims. In a radio interview in Utah the following day, McCarthy had changed the number to 57, and on February 11, in Reno at the Mapes Hotel, McCarthy again invoked the number 57 instead of 205, and named Robert Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney and Harlow Shapley as being on the list. Several days later, when McCarthy was speaking to the Senate in Washington DC, the number had changed to 81.

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy offered evidence for his claims by going through the Lee list. There were marked differences between what the Lee report actually said, and what Senator McCarthy claimed on the Senate floor. For instance, the Lee list read:

“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [8]

___

I have removed the single reference to Schrecker Material. If there is anything here you consider untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department and the administration of President Truman and a United States army research laboratory. In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged from the libraries at the urging of McCarthy’s staff were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.

The VOA hearings that resulted often involved closely questioning witnesses, not about the transmitters, but about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he had studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [9]

Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days of testimony about statements he’d made in a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending statement had been the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [10]

Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about his personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [11]

One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened at being called before McCarthy's committee that he committed suicide after writing a lengthy suicide note, which specifically referenced the issue he was being called to testify about, that being the placement of transmitters. "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes made," he wrote. “....You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect,” he wrote. “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [12]

After the VOA investigation, many of its problems were corrected. No evidence of sabotage was found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

___

This used no Schrecker material. If any of this is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

___

McCarthy’s 1953 investigation into the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was prompted by a defecting East German Scientist’s claim of having seen microfilmed documents from that center..” [13] An investigation had led officials to the conclusion that he was unreliable, but Senator McCarthy’s subcommittee still began holding hearings on the case, suspending, among others, researcher Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [14]

The Army averred that no documents were missing and its own investigation had found no evidence of a spy ring, maintaining that what the defecting scientist had seen had probably been Signal Corp data that had been shared with the Russians during the War under Lend Lease. Still, the investigation went on. When electrical engineer Carl Greenblum broke down and wept during Roy Cohn’s cross-examination and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed door session, McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked to the press and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother two days before, and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958. [15]

The fifteen hearings resulted in no indictments of any individuals, and established only that a few Communists had worked at Fort Monmouth from 1941 to 1947 – something that was already known by the Army -- and that there had been a small communist cell at one of their subcontractors in Nutley New Jersey. There was no substantive evidence to connect these groups or individuals to espionage.

___

None of this contained any Schrecker material. If there is anything here that is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy had already alienated the Army with his treatment of General Ralph Zwicker, the Commander of Camp Kilmer who had angered McCarthy by refusing to defy an executive order that forbade him to release names to McCarthy during McCarthy’s investigation into the promotion of an army dentist named Irving Peress who had invoked the Fifth Amendment while filling out the military loyalty questionnaire. McCarthy had implied Zwicker was lying and strongly implied that this World War II veteran, who had served at Normandy and the Ardennes and had been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters and Arrowhead, the British Distinguished Service Order, and the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with Palm, and that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” [16]

The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

From the day he addressed the Senate in 1950, paraphrasing excerpts from the Lee List, Joseph McCarthy had based much of his momentum on showmanship. In the Army McCarthy hearings he met his match in the army’s counsel, a 62-year-old Republican attorney from Boston named Joseph Welch who succeeded in baiting McCarthy into displays of open sarcasm and malice. As a result, the press coverage that had, before, been McCarthy’s best friend now became his worst enemy.

The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn, McCarthy excused himself, left, then returned and, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher. Cohn was horrified by this breach, and sent McCarthy a note reading, “This is the subject which I have committed to Welch we would not go into. Please respect our agreement as an agreement because this is not going to do any good.” (The agreement had been that if Welch would not bring up Cohn’s military history, McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher.) McCarthy acknowledged this only with the comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather it have me go into this," then went on to say:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

This was, as Roy Cohn knew, a miscalculation, likely only to genuinely infuriate an opponent who was not going to become flummoxed or lose control as past opponents had. It was a bit of showmanship – McCarthy knew full well about the agreement and knew Welch was aware of Fisher’s past – being unwisely used against a superior showman.

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. He concluded with the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [17]

___

None of this contains any Schrecker material. If anything here is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy’s most enduring legacy may be in giving a name to the conflation of dissent with disloyalty, a tendency to cite criticism of an administration as if it were evidence of treason, or even treason itself – “McCarthyism.” Perhaps an inevitable result of the Cold War era, “McCarthyism” was the acceleration of something that had existed before McCarthy became famous, and waxed and waned long after he had dropped from public sight.

If any of this is untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

The overwhelming majority of those who McCarthy named and whose lives he affected, however, are not mentioned in Venona. Reed Harris is not identified as an agent. Nor is Aaron Coleman, or Gustavo Duran, or Harlow Shapely, or Fred Fisher. Nor are most of the many, many teachers, writers, performers, filmmakers, and workers who lost their job and even careers as the result of McCarthyism.

If any of the above is untrue, please point it out. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I will review it in detail (may take sometime). It is a bit lengthy, and there are several other things that need to be discussed; for example, what does "McCarthy named" mean? There are numerous examples of "being named" a CPUSA member, yet not involved in espionage. Or what does it mean to "be investigated"? Giving testimony is not necessarily "being investigated". And another point, McCarthy primarily was investigating institutions, not persons. So we have about 50 years of much bad information to unravel. So let's try and find some common ground to begin with. Thank you again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

By "McCarthy named," I mean he either stated outright or announced his suspicions in public, as he did with with Durand and Service, or summoned individuals as witnesses and cited them as possibly disloyal. Yes, indeed, there are numerous cases of people "being named" as communists but not involved in espionage. The resulting damage to an individuals career could still be pretty bad.

As for the word "investigated," giving testimony certainly qualifies as being investigated if that testimony consists of you being interrogated about your beliefs and your personal and professional life, AND having other witnesses being questioned about your beliefs and your personal and professional life. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:(a) "being named" is not specific enough; should read "being named as holding CPUSA membership", or "being named a spy". Those are two ''entirely different'' things. (b) giving testimony is not the same as being investigated; the person giving testimony may have been subpoenaed to answer question about the activities within an institution, organization, or of other persons. Further, the fact the person giving testimony may have held CPUSA membership, but was not themself being actively investigated, hardly qualifies them as being a victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:(c) Argueing over numbers, i.e. was it 205, 87, 57 etc. is moot at this point. Would you agree?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "investigate" means "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry." That most certainly applies to testimony in which the witness is repeatedly questioned about his or her beliefs and his or her personal and professional life.

And I'm not "arguing over numbers." There is no question that McCarthy gave three different numbers within a few days, and no argument about that. It's not "moot to this point" because it was that variation in McCarthy's claims that caused many observers to be skeptical about them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Page protection==
I have protected this page because of evidence of trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am losing track of the changes. I do think that the article should describe some criticism of McCarthy's methods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Me too. But this above is a bit lengthy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The above was already posted. You could easily have left it in place and removed the single source you objected to earlier.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox: I have unlocked the page for editing. For the time being, I propose leaving out all the specualtion regarding "was it 57 or 87?", etc. I hope you will review this information regarding the Lee List [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html], and between the two sources we can craft langauge. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But what I included was not "speculation." It is a FACT that McCarthy gave three very different numbers on three different occasions. I don't speculate on WHY he did this, but I simply point it out. Why should that fact not be included? And I've already seen that piece on the Lee list. How would it change anything I posted? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm suggesting these are two separate issues. (1) Attacks on McCarthy's credibilty & character regarding the Tydings Committee, etc., and (2) McCarthy's abuse of the Committee's function toward witnesses. Why don't you go ahead and put in some stuff about his mistreatment of witnessess, etc., and I'll work on combining some information regarding the Lee List.

:::In actual fact, what we know now is that while McCarthy was conducting "witchhunts", KGB Agents were personally and simultaneously argueing cases before the United States Supreme Court. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that these are "two separate issues" justify omitting the facts surrounding the very statements that catapulted McCarthy into national attention? And you still haven't explained what I posted about the Lee list that is untrue. I'd really like to know.

What KGB agents were these, and how would that render people like Annie Moss, Fred Fisher, Julius Hlavaty, and Carl Greenblum less innocent?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I can see we maybe speaking two different languages. Let me ask again, have you read the Appendix's to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report? [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html] Specifically, these:

:Chairman's Foreword
:Loyalty
:The Encounter with Communism
:The Experience of the Second World War
:The Experience of The Bomb
:The Cold War [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm speaking English. I use the OED and Websters. Are you speaking a different language? What dictionaries are you using?

I've read all this. Please point out exactly where it renders something I've posted untrue, and what it renders untrue. You still haven't offered a single specific that shows anything I've posted as being counter to the facts.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so now we need to summarize information. The above is a bit lengthy, can it be condenced? I offered one solution, please wait on all the "he said/she said" stuff and go ahead and insert some damage McCarthy did to truelly, innocent people.

:The Lee List stuff only has been reviewed up to 1952, and that by only a few scholars. And we also must bare in mind somethings still remain classified, or other evidence is missing. This is what I'm refering to as two different issues. Now, if you think this article is gonna be just another cut & pasted hit piece that says McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler, that's unlikely. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I will certainly reinsert what I already posted about McCarthy's behavior during the VOA, Army Signal Corps, and Army-McCarthy hearings, but before I do that I want to know "he said she said stuff" you're talking about.

What I posted about the Lee List, i.e., the text of the Lee List and the exchange between McCarthy and Lucas on the Senate floor, in which McCarthy fudged what was actually said in the Lee Listk is not classified, is not a matter of dispute, and therefore requires no review by scholars.

I don't post "cut and paste" pieces. My writing is my own. I DO consider it important to back up what I say with cites and that is, I was given to understand, in fact one of the "commandments" for posting here.

Please point out where I stated or implied that "McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy edits ==

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to edit down some of the army-mccarthy hearing material.

Actually the numbers are 205, 57, and 81, and it's not a matter of "he said/she said." It's strictly HE said, he being McCarthy. The different numbers McCarthy cited were certainly considered important at the time, so important that they became a part of popular culture. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE film starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury even includes a reference to it.

Exactly what telegram are you talking about?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes & no. It's largely depracated and moot, and in the scheme of history, will be forgotten. Ignorant armies clashed by night. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[United States Army Signal Corps]]==

:''Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [11] ''

What is the relevence of this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does "yes and no" answer my question about what telegram you're referring to? And yes, I know that there are many aspects of McCarthy's career that some would like to be "forgotten." They must not be forgotten, and I intend to do my best to ensure that they are not.

The Coleman case was one of the major bones of contention in the Signal Corps hearings. The passage I cited is yet another indication of McCarthy's tendency to inflate his claims.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.

Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Haven't retrieved the photcopy of the Feb. 11 1950 telegram McCarthy to Truman (originated in Reno Nevada) yet. The cite about Coleman IMO may do a disservice to the anti-McCarthy view because it is somewhat labored to make a point that may not even exist (taking the material above at your word); IOW, it discredits the more salient points of the argument. I hope to avoid parsing each jot & tittle, which is a characteristic noticable among McCarthy critics for half a century. We need to summarize some of this information to make the article of encyclopedic quality.

:No one's disputing your integrity or motives here, indeed we welcome your valuable close to first-hand knowledge of these events--and it is extremely necessary that this retelling of events be fully, and properly understood and preserved. In McCarthy's case, again IMO, the ''overkill'' may even generate sympathy for McCarthy, because often it's nakedly prejudiced. I hope you consider this criticism.

:One does not have to work hard to expose McCarthy's flaws as a human being; but one also has to remember that's what he was, a human being, not a monster or animal. And all these tales we read too often directly conflict with the accounts of family and friends, even political opponents who worked closely with him, that personally he was quite different than the way his detractors depict him.

:Let's return to my earlier proposal: divide these two issues (1) the Lee List (and other lists); (2) abuse of witnesses. I invite you to write the whole section about "Criticism of methods", keeping in mind some economy of scale for an encyclopedic entry. Then we can collaborate on the Lee List, and this reference doesn't actually have to be more than a few sentences.

:What sometimes happens when there is more than one view on a subject, the article turns into an arms race, each side piling up more and more source for thier side or to trash the other; let's set some limits on how far we will go in this direction. As I said before, your close knowledge of this matter is ''extremely valuable'' and needs to be articled in a good quality encyclopedic entry. Thank you very much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's it is, [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words.

Everyone who is the subject of an article here is a human being instead of monster or animal, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Salvador Allende. Their family and friends, like Joseph McCarthy's, also have accounts that conflict with what their detractors say. And yes, I've heard that in person, even some of his opponents found Joseph McCarthy quite likeable. I've heard the same about Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, and Patrick Buchanan. Whether these human beings are gracious hosts or can tell a good joke and what their children or siblings or spouses have to say about them is, for the most part, beside the point when describing their public careers, and belongs in a section devoted to their personal life.

Yes there is more than one view on a subject. There is not, however, more than one set of facts, and the inclusion of those facts, whether or not they make the subject of an article look good, is not "moot." Setting aside a separate section of "Criticism" comes across here as an attempt to weed out those facts that are unflattering to Joseph McCarthy and separate them from the whole, as if they were a sort of footnote. I don't notice similar "Criticism" sections in Conservapedia articles on Salvador Allende, John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and while Hillary Clinton's article has one, Whitewater and other criticisms of her policies mentioned in the article as a whole are not restricted to the Criticism section. For that reason, I am not inclined to put the issue surrounding McCarthy's conflicting statements about numbers or the discripancies in his reading of the Lee List under "Criticism." It belongs in a discussion of how he became a household name, and therefore early in the main body of the piece. It's up to the reader to decide how these facts reflect on Senator McCarthy. I appreciate your concern about a sort of "arms race" building up in the article, but the facts surrounding McCarthy's rise as a public figure are important.

I will comment on the telegram later tonight. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:How's this; let's place the Coleman material & whatever else is relevent in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Here's another good first hand account [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy to Truman 11 Feb 1950==

Well, the telegram you've cited starts out with a flat-out untruth. McCarthy did not say in Wheeling that he had a list of 57 Communists. The figure he gave was 205. This business of only 80 out of 300 state department employees certified for discharge being dismissed -- and that after consultation with Alger Hiss -- is simply nonsense. So far I've seen no evidence that Hiss was "consulted" on this issue and the letter from which McCarthy got those figures was written in 1946. Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records, how does he know that no more dismissals followed in the years following that letter? I have been unable to find the phrase "known to you" in that telegram, so I can hardly answer your question about why McCarthy put those words (which I'm unable to find) into writing. Care to give it a shot?

I have no problem placing the Coleman material in a section WITHIN THE MCCARTHY PIECE devoted to the US States Army Signal Corps investigation. I notice, however, that you have locked this article for editing. Why?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. The 205 is a leak from the FBI [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22] and refers to persons active in Soviet intelligence operations.
:I misspoke. The context reads,
::"I KNOW [ABSOLUTELY] THAT OF ONE GROUP APPROXIMATELY 300 CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY FOR DISCHARGE, HE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ONLY APPROXIMALTEY 80....THE DAY ...HISS [was exposed]...YOU SIGNED AN ORDER FORBIDDING THE STATE DPEARTMENTS GIVING TO THE CONGRESS ANY INFORMATION...DESPITE THIS STATE DEPARTMENT BLACKOUT, '''WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57''' COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.THIS LIST IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN GET A MUCH LONGERT LIST BY ORDERING THE ....LIST OF THOSE WHOM YOUR OWN BOARD LISTED AS BEING DISLOYAL....
:'''Analysis of the above'''.
:What McCarthy was referencing as "known to you" is the previous list of 300, of which McCarthy distilled 57 "avalable to you" which supposedly Truman already knew.

:In the mainspace article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&action=edit&section=2] we have a reference to the June 1947 Senate Appropriations Committee communication to George Marshall which I beleive comes from the Moynihan Commission Report. This link [http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm] uses the same language and gives us more context:
::''The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
:The Hiss reference I could probably dig up a cite if I had to, but its on hold for the time being.
:You say, ''Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records''; untrue. McCarthy didn't have complete records and had gained much in oral briefings from Hoover. McCarthy made the reference to 205 10 February 1950; the source document states,
::''A total of 206 persons have been identified as having been active in Soviet intelligence operations for the MGB in the United states and a chart breaking this figure down is set forth in this memorandum. This memorandum was initially prepared for the Director on 10-26-50 ...'' [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]
:so one more had been added to the FBI's investigation of persons active in Soviet espionage between 10 February 1950 and 26 October 1950, when this memorandum was initially prepared for J. Edgar Hoover, the Director.
:I didn't lock another Admin did; there's persistent vandalism when unlocked. That's why we're using Talk page. ![[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The document you reference is "“concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940S...These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD." (emphasis added) so as an attempt to bolster claims McCarthy that there were 57 "card carrying Communists" in the State Department in 1950 it's pretty useless. In fact, the number "57" had referred to State Department statistics from 1948 which showed that 57 of the 108 on Lee's list (who were not identified as Communists, by the way) were still employed at the State Department, more than half of whom had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, 22 of whom were still being looked into.

The quote you cite about John Peurifoy comes from a plainly partisan source. I rather doubt that the Moynihan report contains language like “Guess what Armas was doing just before he became President of Guatemala?” and if it does that doesn't say much for it as an unbiased cite. And I'm sorry, but until you offer a convincing cite for that Hiss reference, there is no reason for anyone to believe it just because Joe McCarthy said it in a telegram to the president that opens with a falsehood about what he'd said at Wheeling.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:(A) the number 205 came from briefings with Hoover ''prior'' to A.H. Belmont, author of the memo, putting it down on paper in October 1950;
:(B) the 57 number, as the McCarthy to Truman telegram plainly states, "WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT", i.e. McCarthy and staff extrapolated these 57 from the Lee List (Lee List was the State Departments internal investigation after the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concerns to Sec. Marshall in June 1947;
:(C) in context, "57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT" is actually understated, becuase the 205 number refers to '''''persons involved in espionage activities''''', not simply just party members. This is where the confusion lies, and on several levels. Hoover told McCarthy orally something to the effect that the FBI was investigating 205 persons in the communist conspiracy. Whether Hoover told McCarthy (i) there was evidence of espionage activity, or (ii) the 205 were security risks, or (iii) the 205 were CPUSA members, we just don't know. But the evidence now, based upon declassified Venona evidence is the 205 number was very real, and '''''was not''''' talking about simply party membership or security risks. The 205 were very active espionage investigations. And further, this 205 refers to '''identified''' persons, i.e. were a true name identification had been made from a codename.
:(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, is defending his reputation in that statement from the Arlington National Cemetary from the alleged "McCarthyite" charge that ''he'' was involved in covering up the State Department's failure to disharge known security risks. Hardly partisan when you are defending yourself from McCarthyite smears. Is this the contortions you now are willing to bend into to keep stale points & arguements alive?

:Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagination, and in fact is related to (1) the FBI, and (2) contemporaneous journalists failure to clarify precisely the varying degrees of complicity based upon the difference between (a) espionage activity, (b) CPUSA membership, (c) a generic security risk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy himself said in an interview with US News and World Report that the 205 number had come from the Byrnes letter. And even if it’s true that it actually came from Hoover, the memo you’ve cited makes it very clear that it’s referring to THE 1940S – something you seem very intent on ignoring.

As for that cite you posted on Puerifoy, it is NOT from the official Arlington National Cemetery website (which is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org.) As is plainly indicated by the following note near the bottom of the page: ”This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. AS SUCH IT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES ARMY.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what “contortions” you’re talking about other than the “contortions’ of noting dates (like the fact that memo you cite refers to the 1940s – not 1950), quoting accurately, examining cites and using the commonly understood meanings of commonly understood words like “investigate.”
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:''it’s referring to THE 1940S ''
:Not true. Those were active espionage investigation at that point; some of the 205 (or 206) had left government service, some were never employed in government service, and some remained in government service. And most importanly--that number of 205 '''''only refers to persons identified'''''--there remains to this day something on the order of 178 '''''unidentified''''' code names, unidentifed after a 38 year investigation.

:Further, the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent between 1942 and 1945.

:Let me have a cite on the Brynes letter; what is obvious is in Feb 1950 Hoover was talking about information he was getting from the FBI liaison to Venona, but it wasn't summarized on paper until Oct 1950--probably due to the fact the confusion some of these numbers were making in the press.

:And the most obvious aspect of all this is, McCarthy was being used by Hoover & the FBI without knowing it. McCarthy probably never realized the FBI was feeding him information on people who the FBI knew it wasnt worth pursueing, but they perhaps could be embarassed or coerced to turn on family members or associates they knew to be involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret apparatus]].

:The Puerifoy cite, < http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm > I would assume was put up by his family, and probably may have been written by Peurifoy himself before his death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism of McCarthy's methods==
The Criticism section is too long and unbalanced, with a lot of false and misleading innuendo. I'd like to pare it down to something with actual facts and criticism. Here is the gist of what's there:

:McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive investigations. McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of President Truman, Voice of America, and a United States Army research laboratory. The VOA hearings involved the content of broadcasts and transmitter difficulties, and found serious problems. Critics say that McCarthy did not proved deliberate sabotage. Critics also say that McCarthy only uncovered a few Communists in the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy also had an argument with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings.

If the exchange with Welch is to be described, then it should also include McCarthy's point of view. If it is to include trivia from witnesses, then it should also explain just what the criticism is, and also give McCarthy's side. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And exactly what is currently posted in the article that is not an "actual fact?" It sounds like you actually want to remove facts -- not add to them.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:PF Fox, it's not an issue of facts, it's an issue of scale. There's just too much material that makes a redundant point. I suggest a paragraph or two could be moved to [[United States Army Signal Corps#PSI investigations]]; other material also may fit elsewhere. Perhaps you may wish to start [[Joseph Welch]] and place the famous exchange in there. But this article needs some proportion to it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The section is filled with trivia like McCarthy asking the VOA Director of Religious Programming about his religious beliefs. What is the criticism? Do some people think that this was an unfair question? Who? Why?
: It describes Kaplan's suicide, but fails to say how this is a criticism of McCarthy. It is not clear how this is a criticism of McCarthy, except to suggest that McCarthy is responsible for Kaplan's death. Who says that? Why? It is irresponsible to put such a suggestion in, without at least giving McCarthy's side of the story.
: The Welch incident is completely one-sided and misleading. Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone, and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known.
: The section includes unsupported opinions like, "McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to his lack of actual evidence and defendant convictions." Whoever wrote this seems to think that McCarthy was a prosecuting attorney. He was not. McCarthy was a US Senator, and it was not his job to convict defendants.
: This whole section perpetuates a lot of false myths, and should be slashed and fixed. If I do it, then I would remove most of it, as it is unbalanced, misleading, and I don't even see the point to most of the so-called criticisms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Grilling someone about their personal religious beliefs in an investigation that is supposed to be about sabotage is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And only someone who has not read the actual transcript of the exchange between McCarthy and Welch would claim that "Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known." In fact, McCarthy had already agreed to NOT mention Fisher in the course of the hearings. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: The VOA investigation was not just about sabotage. I have watched the video of the Welch-McCarthy incident, and the description that was in the article was extremely biased and misleading. I think that it is fine to put the Welch-McCarthy incident in the article, but only if it includes McCarthy's justification for doing what he did. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some changes to the Criticism section. I think that it is important to summarize the significant criticisms, as McCarthy was criticized a lot. What I don't want is just unsupported statements that McCarthy ruined innocent lives when no one can give an example. The Senate did censure McCarthy, and we have the text of that resolution, so we know what that criticism is. That criticism is described. If there are other specific and significant and documented criticisms that I missed, let's include those also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cropped section placed here for discussion==
:The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

:Thomas C. Reeves 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy went through the Lee list. The Lee list read:

:“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

:McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

:Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has ben no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

:McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 240."</ref>

:In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, [[Jean Paul Sartre]], and Theodore H. White.

:The VOA hearings often involved closely questioning witnesses about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. <ref>Time Magazine, March 16, 1953</ref>

:Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days about a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending passage was the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. <ref>”McCarthy Hearings, 1953-54 Vol 1. February 23, 1953</ref>

:Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. <ref>“Time Magazine, March 23, 1953"</ref>

:One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened to testify that he committed suicide. In a lengthy suicide note which specifically referenced the placement of VOA transmitters he wrote, "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes"...."You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," and “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 485</ref>

:No evidence of sabotage of VOA tranmitters were found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

:During Senate debate on the Communist Control Act of 1954, [[Senator Hubert Humphrey]] proposed making membership in the CPUSA a [[felony]]. <ref>McAuliff, Mary Sperling (1978). ''Crisis on the Left: Cold War Politics and American Liberals, 1947-1954''. University of Massachusetts Press, 142. ISBN 0-87023-241-X.</ref><ref>Art Preis, [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/preis/1954/xx/liberals.htm ''A Case of “Midsummer Madness”? Police-State Liberals''], From Fourth International, Vol.15 No.4, Fall 1954, pp.111-114. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).</ref> If implemented this proposal would have resulted in the United States openly prosecuting individuals strictly for their political views.

:What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s public career were the famous [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] of 1954. The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

:The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Boston attorney Joseph Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn McCarthy, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch that he would not bring up the subject if Welch did not bring up Cohn's military history, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher:

:<blockquote>
“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”
</blockquote>

:“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. "Little did I dream you would be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you..." Welch added the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” <ref>”http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html."</ref>
----
Some of this material may good for [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] or other articles. Some was placed in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Let's see if we can find a home for it.

I have reprotected the page from editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Moving it seems like a good solution for now, but I really don't think that any page should have innuendo that McCarthy caused Kaplan's suicide when McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation of VOA problems. I do think that the McCarthy page should have a criticism section that explains that a lot of people hated McCarthy for exposing the problem of Communists in the govt, and there should be some representative sampling of the dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny. As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case. Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=141607] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI. I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally. Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he '''''did''''' in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he '''''knew''''' he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938. As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, '''''both''''' from Wisconsin. Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing. And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Analysis of obsolete sources==

'''Specific objections to above material''': I am going to invoke '''WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F]
, which states
*'''An obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources. Let's examine these passages:
::*''"...I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party "''
Venona now makes it known (a) the 205 number came Hoover; (b) Hoover did on earlier occasions similarly manipulate the source of his information (Venona) by adding '''other''' names [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html] which were not implicated in Venona, to wit,
::"on May 29, 1946, [Hoover] sent George E. Allen, a confidant of the President and head of the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]], a four-page letter... The Director reported that [Venona] had revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names listed, [[Alger Hiss]] was there, as was [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]]. But these names were well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson.” The third name was “Former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy.” Further on was “Bureau of the Budget—Paul H. Appleby.” ...Further, that it automatically discredited the other accusations..." (Chairman's Forward, Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html] ([http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html Hoover to Allen Letter, May 29, 1946], pages 1 and 2); [https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm Benson and Warner] continue:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

::*''McCarthy had changed the number to 57''
Objection: redundant and no mystery because the [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List. This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap. Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time. The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime. And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive US Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union. IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.D]
to remove security risks from these sensitive positions.

::*''McCarthy...named...[[Mary Jane Keeney]]''
McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

::*''The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

This information is obsolete based upon recent Venona scholarship.

::*''Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy..."''
Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona. Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Overall evaluation ==

My take is that McCarthy has been demonized. His name has been made synonymous with overzealous rooting out of evil - or mean-spirited and partisan intimidation of innocent dissent.

All of this is a smokescreen. Communists murdered tens of millions of people. Support of communism is support of murder.

The way they slam Joe McCarthy makes him (in Liberal eyes) as bad as Hitler. Yet it is the Communists who are as bad as Hitler, or worse. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, [[Mao Tse-Tung]], etc. If anyone needs demonization, these men do. Not McCarthy.

And guess who else used to round people up and intimidate them into ratting out their friends and coworkers? The Communists themselves. And these betrayals cost people their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: here here! McCarthy was a great man. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Billy Graham

2007-03-27T18:02:55Z

Richard: now there is

'''William "Billy" Franklin Graham''' is a prominent evangelical preacher. Mr. Graham have inspired over 210 million people in 185 countries around the world. <ref>http://www.dailyherald.com/suburbanliving/story.asp?id=295087</ref> <ref>http://www.billygraham.org/mediaRelations/bios.asp?p=1</ref>

Billy Graham

2007-03-27T18:01:50Z

Richard: New page: '''William "Billy" Franklin Graham''' is a prominent evangelical preacher. Mr. Graham have inspired over 210 million people in 185 countries around the world. {{{stub}}}

'''William "Billy" Franklin Graham''' is a prominent evangelical preacher. Mr. Graham have inspired over 210 million people in 185 countries around the world.

{{{stub}}}

User talk:Tomt

2007-03-27T16:00:57Z

Richard:

==Use in research==
You say: "I would not currently use many of the articles in a piece of research due to this bias."

Goodness, I hope you would not use ''any'' encyclopedia in a piece of research. Not Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, not the Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them are acceptable references. They are at best useful for acquiring background in an unknown area, but they are secondary sources at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You must remember that when I am researching I am finding mostly out information on topics on my A level course, and therefore use many encyclopedias, textbooks and websites in amalgamating a piece of research. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 14:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Tomt you have been [[User_talk:Richard#Liberal_alert | identified as a liberal]] by [[User:AustinM]], would you mind [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List | self identifying]]? Thanks. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 12:00, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

2007-03-27T13:36:46Z

Richard:

'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

In the United States, the term ''liberal'' characterizes people who hold political views that support fewer governmental restrictions on behavior, while supporting greater governmental influence in the free market to protect what are perceived as "natural rights" (such as anti-discrimination laws, etc.). This is different from [[classical liberalism]] (which has more to do with what would be called [[libertarianism]] in the United States). Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times. The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today:

* in favor of [[gun control]]
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory
* reduction of the military
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* reduction of gender roles and differentiation
* in favor of [[political correctness]] in every day speech
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref>
* refusal to view current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

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

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Fox News Channel

2007-03-27T13:28:45Z

Richard: mogul often has a negative connotation.

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a US cable and satellite news channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of Australian-born media businessman Rupert Murdoch's [[News Corporation]]. Roger Ailes was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news anchors calling terrorists, what they were (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants". It seems to have paid off. As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

While Fox News claims to be "Fair & Balanced", a claim which it backs up by having bipartisan shows like Hannity and Colmes, and daily guest pundits from all sides of the political spectrum, it is widely understood to be more sympathetic to conservative and Christian views. Despite this, Fox News characterizes itself as reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news shows.[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center] Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias elsewhere in the media, Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it sometimes draws a fatter audience share than all its competitors combined. Fox News prides itself in its motto: "News, Fair and Balanced. We Report, You Decide".

The far-left isn't happy about that slogan. Even before an angry Bill Clinton exploded at "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after getting lightly pressed (for Wallace) about his record on fighting Al Qaeda, Democratic politicos and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, accusing it of being a Republican propaganda mill. Al Gore has likened Fox to a right-wing "fifth column." Leftist groups, including [[MoveOn.org]], funded the semi-documentary "Outfoxed," which purports to expose the channel's nefarious Republican agenda, and petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban Fox's use of its famous "Fair and Balanced" slogan as deceptive advertising. It was denied.

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found Brit Hume's "Special Report" — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which leaned left. [http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html] The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the network's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, Bill O'Reilly, is not a mainstream Republican. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for squashing the little guy. Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the lurid murder-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been Liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for perverts.

Liberal commentators go in and out of the Fox studios all over America, every day — some of them, like host Alan Colmes and news analyst Marvin Kalb, and Eleanor Clift affiliated with the channel. There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is more conservative than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission.

== Anti-Elitist ==

Fox's real ethos is not Republican but anti-elitist — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the PC "militant" to refer to … well, terrorists. Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism: Christians, far from being seen as lunatics or extremists — as too often is the case in the mainstream media — actually get some respect. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, Dr. James Dobson and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal lobbying organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the University of Alabama." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

== Fox Versus The Leftist View ==

"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said coloumnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the United Nations' oil-for-food initiative in Iraq, initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that New York and Los Angeles have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

== Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel CEO, Talking About Fox News ==
The link below, is a transcript of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controvery about its mission...

'''TRANSCRIPT: FOX News' Roger Ailes Speaks at Television Critics Association Press Tour: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html'''

== From Anchor To Press Secretary ==

In April, 2006 the White House selected Tony Snow, Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House press secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a pundit on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the Washington Post. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html]

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President George H.W. Bush and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]].[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html]

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-27T12:14:30Z

Richard:

Archive: [[User talk:MountainDewarchive1]]

== [[User:Conservator]] ==

I can't tell what he's doing. He seems to be adding extra-huge amounts of content to articles, but every time I try and go there, it errors out. Just fyi. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 16:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anarchocapitalism ==

The user created a redirect to that page at Free Market, and it looked like a crank article.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry for any time that I wasted. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[God]]==
I unlocked [[God]] to registered users since around 8 days have passed since it was locked. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on it, so I thought I'd let you know. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[User:Conservative]]==
The debate over [[User:Conservative]] is going on at [[Talk:dinosaur]], and the section above the one you just created at [[User Talk:Aschlafly]]. I must agree, it is somewhat disturbing that the notion "Conservative's worldview is the ONLY worldview" has gained acceptance. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== New User ==
The New User log has been installed. You can see new account creations now. Thanks for the tip! [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

===Judaism==

You have to revert that page to an older version, ASAP. There is slander in there I think you missed - like saying that the real Jews are white Europeans and that Jews descended from Satan.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one ==

Hi MountainDew -- a note to let you know that the version of [[Judaism]] which you protected is an innacurate one, filled to rants by someone who subscribes to the widely discredited [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity Christian Identity] school of racist thinking which goes so far as to reject the notion that the Jews of today even *are* Jews, and says they are descended from Satan. Please revert to an earlier accurate version if you are going to protect this entry!

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==User names==

Thanks for that block. If I were an admin, I'd have done the same. Keep up the good work! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== CP:AID ==

Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at [[CP:AID]]. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is [[Germany]] and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at [[CP:AID]], check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock ==

Now that the rash of vandalism seems to have passed, could you unlock my user page? I need to make some edits. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, feel free to delete this little thread. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==Spoon==
why did you block him?? All he did was quote the Bible. If you don't think it belongs where it was put, delete it, but don't block the editor. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He was only posting verses that post the Bible in a bad light. I will unblock him, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User Ilikebigbibles should be blocked. Are you going to be up a while? If not, then I'm inclined to block him now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks much. He's from Australia (near Sydney) based on his IP, and his edits and name highly suggest the need to block. Unless you see a reason not to, I'd recommend blocking before you sign off. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Alien==
Please explain your justification for deletion of the content i added to [[Alien]]. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 02:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== confused ==

Tsumetai said to ask someone on the list and you had a cool name, so I'm asking you. What did i do that was vandalism? and what am I a not good parody at? I thought we were supposed to add true things here, not like at Wikipedia were you have to have npov and liberal bias. [[User:Gabriel|Gabriel]] 13:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Dispute Resolution Process ==

Erm, not sure if you meant to, but you overwrote my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=58850&oldid=58846 here]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, thanks for the quick response. I was getting worried for a minute. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for the quick block ==

Wow, you were really quick on that last block! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Gah, you're way too quick with these obscenity-laden usernames! Hopefully this message will distract you long enough for me to nab one. Mwuahahahaha! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sockpuppet/Troll Stalker! ==

I know you are the same person as that hoji...you ain't fooling anyone, pinko liberal godless soul!

*Sorry, Dan...I apologize. I thought you would realize the humor, the joke, being since you were posting on hoji's page too. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked user==

I just got an e-mail from AmesG that he was blocked by conservative, he wanted me to ask another admin to look into it. I am not sure the surroundings but there is a decent chance it was pre-mature. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you all again!!!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Poor AmesG. You're like the red-headed stepchild of the family. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like the gingers from South Park! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*ROFL! Cheer up....I haven't banned you yet! :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I totally am. But getting banned by Conservative is good for the soul.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bans need not be permanent. Does a user block here also stop the user from posting on their own user talk page? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one is banned, they cannot sign into the site. They could, I guess, post as someone else on their banned page. Perhaps the Webmaster needs to remove the pages of banned users... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please Stop Removing Page Protection ==

It is ''especially rude'' for you to unprotect pages, without consultation with the Sysop who locked it. Is there some explanation for doing it, other than just your idea you know better? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== BillOReillyFan ==

I'm not sure if this has surfaced in the discussion over [[User:BillOReillyFan]] yet, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservapedia&diff=117389986&oldid=117378784 this edit] to Wikipedia by somebody who seems to be BillOReillyFan is quite incriminating. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we call him something else, some cool code name? BillOReillyFan...meh....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just say BORF. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ha! Thats perfect actually. You are on a roll tonight! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia Threat number zero-five-two-nine, abberviated at CON-T0529. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Have fun BORF hunting, I will see you tommorrow! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think [[User:Pacman]] might be a BORF. Lots of good edits (esp. in knowledgeable areas) and then complete silliness. Anyway, he's blocked for a day now. I guess we'll see. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:If nothing else, he likes the nickname you gave him. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock==
Thanks for the unblock, MountainDew. I had no idea how sneaky people were, what with the edits by "BORF". Thanks for redeeming me. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] 03:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology ==

Can you provide some justification for your edits on Scientology? I was fixing a rather overzealous edit by a user called Terryeo.

: I am he. Since the discussion seems to go on at [[User_talk:Pacman#Revert|Pacman's Page]], I replied to him there. The data Pacman is introducing is already in the article. It is in the [[Scientology#Controversy|Contoversy Section]] of the article and has been there for some time. Tmloulouse introduced the data on 19 March at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=47501 editing difference]. He and I worked out a compromise wording that we could both live with, but he introduced the idea and documented it pretty throughly. Pacman seems to want the data taken out of controversy and put into basic beliefs, which would be incorrect. That's why he and I are working that out. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler, whatever... ==

Were you able to block him with no problems? Every time I tried to, it said no user of that name existed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Same problem here :( [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I had to remove the underscores from his name and type the plus sign in myself. It took me several tries. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Why the heck ins't his IP blocked? [[Special:Checkuser]] says the same IP has been used by all of the "hitler" vandals. I'm confused. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure. I suspect that the names are being created by somebody who has an established account here already; I'm going to go run some checkuser inquiries. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

See what you may glean from the users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.97 talk page on Wikipedia]. Evidently, it's an AOL Proxy, and I will try to block this IP. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Aschlafly's talk page ==

Hop over to Aschlafly's [[User Talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] and tell me what you think of the banner at the top, I spent some time trying to get it presentable... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ashens ==

I'll block him if he continues. Fred Phelps is a phsyco, and it's our job to paint him as such! I like your request to him, by the way... I'll go CheckUser him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:He says he's going to "report us for hounding him". Shall I just block him now, and delete all traces of his existence? Yes? That sounds like an excellent idea! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::We should give him one warning for name calling first. Whether he's broken any rules seems borderline, even though he's here to cause trouble. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*This is what I mean. Do either of you understand what other Sysops think when reading these kind of posts? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The whole communication thing, right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*In order for a page to be on a sysops watch list, one has to enable watch manually, or have auto watch enabled so, if a sysop hasnt posted on your page, mine, or hoji's, they dont know the convo is happening = exclusionary. I have had other Sysops express the same frustration. We just can's assume they will see the topic on their watch lists. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Blocks==

I'm confused about some of these. Kiowa and Tmtoulouse mainly. I know there's probably good reasons, but I never saw anything against the rules in any of their entries that I saw.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 04:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Most of it was on Andrews page. I wasn't a party to, nor do I agree that Tmtoulouse should have been blocked, and until I saw your post, didn't know he had been....yet. His feelings were hurt, and he lashed out. That isn't the way to handle such things. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:He did actually suggest being blocked. That said, I do disagree with the blocking, but it's not my call. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*If he asks for a second chance (he has my IM), I wouldn't oppose giving it to him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Kiowa was placed on a short block for subtle vandalism of Americium and a couple of other articles

==Stub2 Deleted==

The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Stub2
:(Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*I appreciate you letting me know about the problem, sid....I sent email to webmaster, didnt get an answer, but main thing its fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**Main praise goes to Elamdri for actually spotting it. (The initial alert didn't come from me, it's an unsigned entry by Elamdri.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*That was sarcasm. None of these guys answer their email, so I don't know why I bothered. And of course, you messaged that the problem was being worked on, but not to me. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I tracked down the people Elamdri alerted and left the "No worries, it's been fixed" notes underneath Elamdri's posts to avoid the alerted people from going all "OH NOES!". Not much use to leave a message on ALL sysops' pages going all "There was some problem, but it's not there anymore, so this message is fairly pointless.". ;) If you check Elamdri's contributions, you'll notice that only a few people have been alerted.
**Besides, you showed that you keep your eyes open by checking other User Talk pages. That definitely speaks for you. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*No worries, I'm on a tear about communication...I should have it worked out of my system by this evening, lol. :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCain v. Reagan ==

Hey MD- Just a heads up.

*Ronald Reagan, born 2/6/11, took office 1/20/81. 69 years 11.5 mos.
*John McCain, born 8/29/36, would take office ~1/15/2009. 72 years 3.5 mos.

I've had to fix that a couple of times and mentioned it on the talk page. Jus ta heads up. (Personally, I think the entire section about "electability" has got to go but someone disagrees with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Eric ==

No, just a friend of his. You must admit, however, that he has his fair share of Google hits (and an interesting biography that you can read here [http://bio50.wikispaces.com/Lord+Eric+Mukherjee%2C+Grand+Guru+of+Science].

Anyway, he wouldn't be enough of a loser to put his own name on somebody's wiki. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 15:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civil War, et al==
It used to be a stub...now it's filling out. Slowly, but it's filling out. The subheadings that are there already (before 1861) are going to be filled with detail before I add the rest. What do you think so far? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==DDT ban==

Hi, don't know if we met yet. I've only been here a week. Thanks for your edit to [[Rachel Carson]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
it seems the name of the picture can only be 4-5 characters long and can only contain alphabetical letters.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative==

I'd consider it a badge of honor to be on your list of conservatives.

Sexually Transmitted Disease

2007-03-27T07:31:07Z

Richard: /* Treatment */

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are illnesses transmitted by sexual contact. STDs comprise a large and diverse set of disease entities which include viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and arthropods. Many of these diseases can cause great harm before symptoms are detected.

== List of STDs and their Signs and Symptoms==
This list is not complete, and many of these disease agents can be transmitted by non-sexual means. Because there are so many different infections, symptoms can vary greatly. Your doctor can give you a great deal of information and should be consulted early to prevent permanent health problems.

===Viruses===

'''Human Immunodeficiency Virus ([[HIV]])'''

In the early stages, HIV can cause fevers, rashes, joint pains, and other non-specific symptoms. These usually occur within weeks after exposure. If untreated, HIV infection usually leads to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) withing eight to ten years. The symptoms of AIDS can be anything, but common presentations include weight loss, night sweats, unusual skin lesions, and diarrhea.

'''[[Herpes Simplex Virus]] (HSV 1 and 2)'''

HSV can appear on either the lips or the genitalia. It usually presents as a painful, bumpy rash, sometimes with fever.

'''Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)'''

HPV often presents as anogenital warts, or as an abnormality on a pap smear. These lesions can be pre-cancerous.

'''Hepatitis B and C Viruses (HBV, HCV)'''

These are often asymptomatic, but over time can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. If any symptoms are present, the illness can look like any hepatitis, that is, jaudice, change in urine or stool color, abdominal swelling, and fatigue.

===Bacteria===

'''[[Neisseria gonorrhoeae]] (gonorrhea, "the clap")'''

In males, this presents as a foul penile discharge. Women may have a vaginal discharge, or no symptoms at all.

'''Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia)'''

This presents similarly to gonorrhea, but is often asymptomatic, and is commonly without the patient knowing they are ill.

'''Treponema pallidum (syphillis)'''

This organism causes syphilis, a multisystem disease.

===Protozoa===

'''Trichamonas vaginalis ("trich")'''

In females, this usually presents as a foul vaginal discharge, but males are usually asymptomatic. Even though males are asymptomatic, partners of infected females must be treated.

===Arthropods===

'''Pubic lice ("crabs")'''

This presents as itching in the groin, and often small parasites are easily visible.

'''Scabies'''

This often presents as itching, with rash being more prominent between the fingers and toes.

== Prevention ==

STDs are most easily prevented through abstinence from sexual contact. Latex [[condom|condoms]] can prevent against many, but not all, STDs, and are not completely effective.

Vaccines are not widely available for STDs. An [[HPV vaccine]] has recently been released for protection against certain, but not all, strains of HPV.

People who have been sexually active before marriage can transmit their sexual diseases to their partner after marriage, therefore failure to use proper protection with a spouse can still lead to infection. Additionally many STDs can be transmitted to unborn children.

== Treatment ==

Some STDs are curable; many are not. For further information, please consult a physician.

Talk:Sexually Transmitted Disease

2007-03-27T07:30:12Z

Richard:

I hate to sound paranoid, so if i do, sorry. I tried to make this contribution informative, clean, moral, and factual. I think it is valuable. Please do not dismiss it out of hand. As I've said before, the subject may be distasteful, but the treatment of it is quite moral. Just because Satan is evil doesn't mean we don't have an entry about him.

Thanks Niandra.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Ive seen the effects on culture when people are denied proper knowledge of the dangers of STIs - mass promiscuity, corruption, casual sex, I saw it all when I was in school years ago. Taboo as it is, people need to know this.

-- BornAgainBrit

== Formatting ==

I hope you don't mind the formatting I did, Palm. It was just looking a little cluttered. Probably like clearing the deck chairs on the Titanic as I don't think this article will be allowed to stay. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I appreciate the assistance. I am having an ongoing discussion with Mr. Schalfly about my qualifications to comment on these matters. He contends that a professor of internal medicine is not qualified in STDs. I think he's believing what he wants, deluded, on crack, or all of the above, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

== Latest edit by ASchlafly ==

Your latest edit of this article has reduced its clarity and accuracy. You have insisted that I been an expert to comment here, which I am, yet you are an attorney and academic NOT AN EXPERT in this field, therefore you are not qualified to comment here. You also violated your commandments by engaging in baseless speculation. Your clarification of abstinence is, however, useful, but clarity is not added by avoiding the mention of condoms. STDs cannot be discussed without discussion of condoms. This article does not condone one method over another, except to clearly state that abstinence is safest, which I would think you could agree on.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sexual issues ==

Intercourse is protected from being created as is condom. I understand this is a family site but if we're going to describe abstinence we'll have to describe "from what" and the ineffectiveness of condoms then we'll need to describe what they are. Lastly, information useful for marital procreation is morally acceptable. Surely a clinical explanation can be engaged in without being indecent. What do ya'll think can we have tasteful reproduction articles on some of these? [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Offensive? ==

Is there anything offensive in here at all? It's simply an article on sexually transmitted diseases. What's to be expected, someone to look in on this article and go "Oh gracious! This is too offensive for my over-protected eyes"?- [[User:Blozrav|Blozrav]]

: Actually I was arguing for more of the same. Noting that condom and intercourse are protected. It leaves a hole in conservapedia. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:: note that I didn't add the offensive line...sorry I thought your comment was to me. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 03:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sexually Transmitted Disease

2007-03-27T07:28:49Z

Richard:

Talk:Sexually Transmitted Disease

2007-03-27T07:06:19Z

Richard: Sex issues

Sexually Transmitted Disease

2007-03-27T07:01:38Z

Richard: /* Prevention */

'''Warning: may contain material considered sensitive by some.'''

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are illnesses transmitted by sexual contact. STDs comprise a large and diverse set of disease entities which include viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and arthropods. Many of these diseases can cause great harm before symptoms are detected.

== List of STDs and their Signs and Symptoms==
This list is not complete, and many of these disease agents can be transmitted by non-sexual means. Because there are so many different infections, symptoms can vary greatly. Your doctor can give you a great deal of information and should be consulted early to prevent permanent health problems.

===Viruses===

'''Human Immunodeficiency Virus ([[HIV]])'''

In the early stages, HIV can cause fevers, rashes, joint pains, and other non-specific symptoms. These usually occur within weeks after exposure. If untreated, HIV infection usually leads to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) withing eight to ten years. The symptoms of AIDS can be anything, but common presentations include weight loss, night sweats, unusual skin lesions, and diarrhea.

'''[[Herpes Simplex Virus]] (HSV 1 and 2)'''

HSV can appear on either the lips or the genitalia. It usually presents as a painful, bumpy rash, sometimes with fever.

'''Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)'''

HPV often presents as anogenital warts, or as an abnormality on a pap smear. These lesions can be pre-cancerous.

'''Hepatitis B and C Viruses (HBV, HCV)'''

These are often asymptomatic, but over time can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. If any symptoms are present, the illness can look like any hepatitis, that is, jaudice, change in urine or stool color, abdominal swelling, and fatigue.

===Bacteria===

'''[[Neisseria gonorrhoeae]] (gonorrhea, "the clap")'''

In males, this presents as a foul penile discharge. Women may have a vaginal discharge, or no symptoms at all.

'''Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia)'''

This presents similarly to gonorrhea, but is often asymptomatic, and is commonly without the patient knowing they are ill.

'''Treponema pallidum (syphillis)'''

This organism causes syphilis, a multisystem disease.

===Protozoa===

'''Trichamonas vaginalis ("trich")'''

In females, this usually presents as a foul vaginal discharge, but males are usually asymptomatic. Even though males are asymptomatic, partners of infected females must be treated.

===Arthropods===

'''Pubic lice ("crabs")'''

This presents as itching in the groin, and often small parasites are easily visible.

'''Scabies'''

This often presents as itching, with rash being more prominent between the fingers and toes.

== Prevention ==

STDs are most easily prevented through abstinence from sexual contact. Latex [[condom|condoms]] can prevent against many, but not all, STDs, and are not completely effective.

Vaccines are not widely available for STDs. An [[HPV vaccine]] has recently been released for protection against certain, but not all, strains of HPV.

People who have been sexually active before marriage can transmit their sexual diseases to their partner after marriage, therefore failure to use proper protection with a spouse can still lead to infection. Additionally many STDs can be transmitted to unborn children.

== Treatment ==

Many STDs are curable; many are not. For further information, please consult a physician.

ValueJet Flight 592

2007-03-27T06:02:17Z

Richard: ValueJet Flight 592 moved to ValuJet Flight 592: Speling

#REDIRECT [[ValuJet Flight 592]]

ValuJet Flight 592

2007-03-27T06:02:17Z

Richard: ValueJet Flight 592 moved to ValuJet Flight 592: Speling

ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades in 1996, killing all 110 on board. The cause was the mistake of loading oxygen canisters as cargo. The investigation revealed that the canisters labeled as "repairable" had been misunderstood as "empty", and at one point the National Transportation Safety
Board suggested that the use of non-English speaking mechanics may have been a problem.<ref>William Langewiesche, "The Lessons of ValuJet 592," 281 Atlantic Monthly No. 3, 81 (Mar. 1998).</ref>

Because of this incident ValuJet bought a tiny airline called AirTran and assumed its name. This allowed ValuJet to recover and even increase operations. <ref>http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/2006/05/after_valujet_t.html</ref>

The worst plane crash in history was also caused by misunderstanding English.<ref>[[Canary Islands Crash]]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

ValuJet Flight 592

2007-03-27T06:01:43Z

Richard:

Divorce

2007-03-27T04:23:24Z

Richard:

Divorce is the ''[[legal]]'' dissolution of a marriage [[contract]]. Divorce, like marriage, has both a secular and, usually, religious component. In addition to a legal divorce, many religions require a ''religious'' divorce. For instance, practicing Jews must get both a legal divorce, to satisfy secular authorities, and a ''get'', or religious divorce, to satisfy religious law.

== Biblical View ==

Many believe that the Bible indicates that '''divorce''' is a sin in the eyes of God, and can lead to quite drastic consequences for those involved.

Many Christians believe that God's views on divorce are most clearly articulated in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9:

''"32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"'' (Matthew 5: 32) and, ''"9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"'' (Matthew 19: 9)

Most biblical scholars agree that these lines function as a total prohibition against divorce (as adultery is a sin) with a few scholars being of the view that "except it be for fornication" indicates that if one spouse committed adultery themselves then the other spouse is free of the marriage and may legally divorce. Many scholars, however, contend that these exceptions are not well founded in the scriptures.

Some believe that divorce therefore equates to adultery, and incurs the consequences of such.

The further consequences of adultery are played out more radically in
Deuteronomy 23:2, when it is stated:

''"2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."'' (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Some believe that this indicates that children produced with a partner after divorce, other than the divorced party, will be condemned to [[hell]], and that this will apply to their progeny for up to ten generations. As this is an Old Testament decree (unlike the previously-mentioned Matthew), it may no longer apply Post-Christ when the emphesis of salvation shifts from countries and family lines to individuals.

Many religions adopt the more liberal view towards divorce that advocates its free practice. The Catholic Church has become much more lax about divorce in recent times as well, in what many Protestants consider opposition to biblical teaching{{cite needed}}, however, most Protestant denominations have no prohibition on divorce.

== Secular view ==

Divorce is the dissolution of a contract and laws vary from state to state. Under no-fault divorce, either party can demand and get a divorce at any time and for any reason.

== Divorce Rate ==

The United States has a divorce rate of 3.6 per 1,000 as of 2005<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf</ref>.

== Covenant Marriage ==

In order to help solve the social problems created by inordinately high divorce rates, some states have begun passing laws enabling [covenant marriage]s. A covenant marriage in some cases is harder to obtain than a default lawful marriage license and also is more difficult to break (the common exceptions being violence, abandonment or adultery). <ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant.htm</ref>

= References =
<references/>

Divorce

2007-03-27T04:04:10Z

Richard: speling

Divorce is the ''[[legal]]'' dissolution of a marriage [[contract]]. Divorce, like marriage, has both a secular and, usually, religious component. In addition to a legal divorce, many religions require a ''religious'' divorce. For instance, practicing Jews must get both a legal divorce, to satisfy secular authorities, and a ''get'', or religious divorce, to satisfy religious law.

== Biblical View ==

Many believe that the Bible indicates that '''divorce''' is a sin in the eyes of God, and can lead to quite drastic consequences for those involved.

Many Christians believe that God's views on divorce are most clearly articulated in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9:

''"32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"'' (Matthew 5: 32) and, ''"9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"'' (Matthew 19: 9)

Most biblical scholars agree that these lines function as a total prohibition against divorce (as adultery is a sin) with a few scholars being of the view that "except it be for fornication" indicates that if one spouse committed adultery themselves then the other spouse is free of the marriage and may legally divorce. Many scholars, however, contend that these exceptions are not well founded in the scriptures.

Some believe that divorce therefore equates to adultery, and incurs the consequences of such.

The further consequences of adultery are played out more radically in
Deuteronomy 23:2, when it is stated:

''"2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."'' (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Some believe that this indicates that children produced with a partner after divorce, other than the divorced party, will be condemned to [[hell]], and that this will apply to their progeny for up to ten generations. As this is an Old Testament decree (unlike the previously-mentioned Matthew), it may no longer apply Post-Christ when the emphesis of salvation shifts from countries and family lines to individuals.

Many religions adopt the more liberal view towards divorce that advocates its free practice. The Catholic Church has become much more lax about divorce in recent times as well, in what many Protestants consider opposition to biblical teaching{{cite needed}}, however, most Protestant denominations have no prohibition on divorce.

== Secular view ==

Divorce is the dissolution of a contract and laws vary from state to state.

== Divorce Rate ==

The United States has a divorce rate of 3.6 per 1,000 as of 2005<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf</ref>.

= References =
<references/>

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-03-27T03:08:53Z

Richard: /* I'm being hounded and threatened! */

<center><big>''Justice never sleeps''</big></center>

{|
|Quick Links 
[[Articles for Deletion|AFD]] 
[[The Conservapedia Commandments]] 
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Speedy delete]] 
|This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Crossed out notes have been dealt with.
|Archives
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/archive1|1]]
|}

== Reporting obscenity ==

User "Hal jordan" posted obscenity here. In addition to being blocked, his full IP address and other identifying information have been reported to [http://www.rrsecurity-abuse.com/contactus.html Road Runner] with the request that it take immediate action against him for posting obscenity to a website used by minors under the age of 16.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A Soft Layer Technologies system in Dallas was the source of a different obscenity by a user. The user has been blocked and the owner of the server has been notified at support@SoftLayer.com .--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removing users ==
*[[User:JamesLipton]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JamesLipton contribs]) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darfur&diff=prev&oldid=50233][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=50188]
*[[User:Smile]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Smile contribs]) looks like nonsense; [[Michael Moore]] in Category:Mammels; [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=52386] numerous random people in [[:Category:Evolutionists]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:I've warned him. Please alert me if he does it again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::There's no evidence the dozen or so people he calls Evolutionists are Evolutionists; to me it looks like trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry - I meant to put Michael Moore as an Evolutionist, but I was too fast on the copy and paste. I was trying to add an evolutionist tag as appropriate, and I don't know a better way than to just browse random articles - so they are random, sort-of. [[User:Smile|Smile]] 00:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Look, I'm willing to give you some leeway with this as you aren't doing the usual vandalism stuff. But back up those evolutionist tags ok? And cut out the mammal stuff.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I think [[Skin Flute]] may have earned you a ban. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Flute&diff=prev&oldid=52337] And these could be speedied. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&diff=prev&oldid=52348][http://www.conservapedia.com/Bob_Saget] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I gave him one week; there's a lot of nonsense there, but some stuff is bordereline. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Deus rex caelum]]--Is making parody/mocking edits/entries.

: I almost blocked him last night, but thought perhaps it best to give more of an opportunity to be constructive. His edits have not been clear vandalism, though I agree at least one seems silly. Maybe he'll get serious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Scalito1776]] - has made numerous vandalizing edits --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY: blocked for infinite duration, and his vandalism has been rolled back. We also have his IP address and ISP.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Sisyphus]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microscope&direction=next&oldid=41608 Microscope], prank/parody article: "Microscopes are ''purportedly'' instruments that enable the user to view objects smaller than the eye is capable of visualizing... Microscopes are frequently used by scientists, such as those arguing in favor of human cloning, stem cell research, and evolution... little investigation has been done into the possibility that microscopes may cause the existence of the very microbes they purport to offer us a glimpse at. It is also possible that the scientific method may itself be at fault." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY: blocked for one week for his one edit, which was inappropriate. Good decision here by another SYSOP (Geo). Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Scriabin]] and [[User:Familyman]], for subtle vandalism in their creation of the original articles on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] (now a redirect). They highlight a problem that concerns me: both of these articles, as created, are poisonous mixes of valid information with misinformation that is subtle enough to escape notice by people who don't know the subject, while ludicrous enough to arouse the derision of those who do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] said that Bach composed "a C Minor Mass." If he did, it's obscure, whereas his '''B''' Minor Mass is celebrated; ''Mozart'' wrote a famous C Minor Mass. That could be a typo. Saying Bach composed ''The Diabelli Variations'' (which are by Beethoven) can't be. The original version of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] goes over the top when it says "The title of his collection Bach's Great Organ Works is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." OK, maybe not-so-subtle vandalism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Familyman has been blocked, and upon Dpbsmith's comments above I also blocked Scriabin. But upon further extensive investigation I couldn't find evidence justifying a block of Scriabin, so I have unblocked him. I have an open mind about this and welcome comments by others. I'm particularly reluctant to disagree with Dpbsmith, who has almost always been right here and has been with us since nearly the beginning. Thanks, Dpbsmith!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::(You're welcome!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT) P. S. Since it wasn't at all obvious (and still isn't) that Scriabin's edit represented abuse, and since he wasn't making rapid edits, I should have asked him about this on his Talk page instead of going here. I've now done so now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Scriabin and I have exchanged mutual apologies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I am reporting [[user: Conservative]] He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[Eric Mukherjee]]. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)'''--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

[[user: JC]] is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything. ([[User:AustinM|AustinM]])

:What is going on?
:[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] gets granted exclusive rights to put the [[creationist]] view on the [[Theory of evolution]] article. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] banns [[User:JC|JC]] for putting the creationist view on other articles, claiming it is vandalism. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] then goes and vandalizes the [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[John Major]] and [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] articles. Are Conservatives fighting amongst each other in order to decide whose version of reality gets to be the definitive one? Can't wait for the SYSOPs banning SYSOPs melee.
:This site is an endless source of surreal entertainment. I can't really see anyone taking it seriously as an encyclopedia.
:I assume I'll get banned for pointing that out.
:[[User:WhatIsGoingOn|WhatIsGoingOn]] 15:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Handy jargon: on Wikipedia, this is known as a "wheel war." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Interesting, I always idly wondered about that term means (and always forgot to look it up), so thanks for the info! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

===Christianity===
The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing?
Thank you,

PD Popejoy

:''All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.''
:They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with [[Truth By Headcount]], now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not sure where this stands now, and I apologize for being late on this discussion. But I wanted to say this: let's avoid using the word "cult" to describe any group. It seems overly pejorative and not encyclopedic. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Mr. Schlafly is correct. Too many words are bandied about all over the Net. Jim Jones, of Jonestown--Peoples Temple infamy, he ran a "Cult". So think of him, and his tragedy, before applying that word. Last I checked, neither the JW's or LDS people were telling their people to drink Kool-aid laced with poison, so they could cross over and meet Jesus.

Blocked [[user:JesusSaves]] for three days. Reason for it was in repeated inclusion of a nonsensical line in the article [[Genesis]], and his decision to begin and escalate an argument about it. When given a last warning to stop, he continued. It's documented on the [[Genesis]] talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:I have to tell you, this is a mirror image of when Conservative blocked AmesG. Karajou, you were involved in a personal dispute with the user and should probably get a fellow sysop to sign off on that.

:From [[Talk:Genesis]] "If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)"

:The fight was with you... get a neutral sysop to go with you... you probably had a case but booting him yourself removes your moral authority. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I reviewed this debate betwen Karajou and JesusSaves at length. While blocking is always a last resort, it is appropriate when someone is repeatedly interfering with productive work. Karajou could have locked the page, but that would have prevented others from contributing to this work-in-progress.

:: JesusSaves should have deferred to the person doing the most work on the entry (Karajou). It's not right for a bystander to come along and repeatedly insist on placing a dot somewhere in the Mona Lisa as Da Vinci paints it. Karajou warned JesusSaves repeatedly, and even then blocked him for only 3 days.

:: Put another way, we don't allow a heckler's veto here. Some professional courtesy and deference is appropriate, and Karajou need not divert his efforts to track down other SYSOPs in this situation. I hope JesusSaves will return and not insist on his same edit yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Personaly, I did not like the thought of having him, or anyone else for that matter, removed from the site. I think a better preference for myself at least would be to contact another sysop or Aschlafly for arbitration should another incident happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

------------------

I responded on your talk page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Alerts==
*<s>[[User:Gulik]] should we consider this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heretic&diff=prev&oldid=25204] a blockable offense? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)</s> blocked
:Yes.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 20:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
*Dunno about [[Breast Exam]], initial text by [[User:NewGuy2]], image added by [[User:EditGenius2]]. Sincere article about an important and nonsexual topic, or deliberate attempt to push at the borderlines? Image appears to have been copied from http://www.iparenting.com/resources/articles/cancerpregnancy.htm by the way. Image is not obscene in context but I would have thought it was hot stuff when I was thirteen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:EditGenius2]] also uploaded [:Image:SelfExam.jpg] but no pages link to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
*Seems to be an edit war in progress over the same image at [[Self Breast Exam]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::Could people at least reply on the talk page for the breast exam page for WHY they keep deleting the non offensive image? If that's offensive, then this is going to end up being an amazingly tiny encyclopedia. It doesn't show anything rude, as I said on the talk page, yet it's gone once again. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::This is going to be a very tiny encyclopedia. That's sort of the point, unfortunately. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 22:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, I deleted that stuff about breast exams. Go look in your Encyclopedia Britannica and see if you find voyeurism like that. You won't, and it shouldn't be here either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Due respect, Andy, but you will... you will find anatomical pictures of breasts, etc. But then again, in an EB, you'll also not find outright censorship of material on evolution.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The desire by so many (present company excluded) to teach about sex has really been an eye-opener for me. There appear to be millions of people wanting to teach about sex! Virtually none of them become doctors, or even go into health professions. Virtually none want to become real teachers. But it's amazing how many want to be teachers of sex-related topics!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Woot! Sign me up!--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Can't say I understood that. Sorry. But, first, breast exams are not sex. They're cancer prevention. Second, teaching about safe sex prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::LOL, "teaching about sex", "voyeurism", ahahaah. Sorry but those are just the complete wrong terms to use. First of all, a picture of a *covered* breast couldn't possibly relate to sex. I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. And how it is voyeurism I will never know, since that would theoretically be a pervert watching someone through a window without them knowing it, or something similar. This is a diagram used to help prevent Breast Cancer. They were definately fully aware of a photo being taken, are covering themselves, and aren't doing anything sexual. But whatever, if you want to be afraid of a bare stomach being shown, inflict censorship, by all means. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 23:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Can somebody delete http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobS&redirect=no please? The page got moved away from its proper space, but the move can't be undone since the moving user also removed the redirect (thus giving the page an actual edit history). If somebody deleted the redirecting page, the move could be reverted --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
**Quick edit to add: I'm not sure if the user had the aim of vandalizing the page, but I figured that most admins check in here for maintenance tasks --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Addressed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Could I ask for another favor in that line? Delete the current copy-pasted Talk page (as of now, no new content has been added to it) content and do a real page move from [[Usertalk:RobS]] to [[User talk:RobS]]? That way, the edit history stays intact, and the old page simply turns into a redirect. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:TheEnlightener]] is advocating the use of [[Drugs]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Long-term tasks==
I made a "short" list of redirects that still exist after the "on wheels" move vandalism. I believe they should be cleaned up... But instead of actually editing fifty redirect pages to include them in the "Speedy Delete" category, I just compiled a list at [[User:Sid 3050/Deletion List]]. I also included the Delete links AND lined them up in a nifty column so you can just click away if you like. (Yes, I've been having far too much fun with regular expression replacements there. I'm weird like that.) =P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Did someone beat me to it? I tried and there was nothing to delete for everything I clicked. Thanks for your superb list!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, whatever. MountainDew reacted to the call within minutes, so you should praise him. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler article ==
The Hitler article is locked to prevent vandalism, but the most recent changes by [[User:RobS | RobS]] and [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]] are nothing short of vandalism. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 14:00 (AEST
:I fail to see how I vandalized this page by adding information. I have unprotected it to allow work. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::It looked like subtle vandalism, by inserting many red herrings and factual erros. Thanks for unprotecting it, although I am not sure where to begin first. The article bebfore the ''improvment drive'' was maybe short, and a bit simplistic, but at least fairly correct.--[[User:Order |Order]] 19 March 20:00 (AEST)

*I posted over there at the Hitler talk page. Let's hope cooler heads will manage the rather simple task of informing users what Hitler was, and what it was he ordered, without getting bogged down in nitpicks and petty arguments. When examining '''true Evil''', and trying to explain it, we simply don't have time for that kind of crap. --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can somebody stop [[User:RobS | RobS]] from editing the Hitler article. Every entry he adds contains at least two factual errors, and he presents legends on Hitler as facts. He doesn't do any research before an edit, and probabaly just relies on his recollections from either history class or his grandmother. Locking this page to prevent vandalism doesn't help, if there is a not-so-subtle vandal among the sysops. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)

: And [[User:TK|TK]] is posted copyrighted material. As a sysop. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
:There is no subtle vandalism going on, it is a good faith effort to improve this article. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:How do you distinguish? If they weren't sysops, they would or should have gotten a warning. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 17:55 (AEST)
::Intent [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They have been told a few times, especially [[User:RobS | RobS]] that the edits conatin many factual errors. That didn't keep him from introducing more. I assume he did it with intend, since I assume that he is able to google for actual information, rather relying on myths, legends, or made up stuff. If he is not able do that, I wouldn't blame him of course. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 14:00 (AEST).
*You distingush by reading the history. :p The attribution was in one of my drafts, and in all the moving and re-arranging, wasn't there when I finished in the middle of the night. Is this place always such a tempest in a teapot? I posted material that is in the public domain, not copyrighted, and attributed. If you see something like what I did, and know the attribution, it is your duty and right to add it in. If you don't know it, rather than running like a baby to abuse, you should contact the person who edited it. My email is listed here, my IM is listed. Does that not sound fair? The page was a freakin' mess. The page is supposed to be about Hitler...they were all over the map. The focus is now back where it should have been all along. I think far too many of you isolate yourselves, rather than communicating, and the last few posts are a good example.

*I assumed that you had just dumped some material for further improvement. That why I said that I was looking forward to the final version. The material that you posted was at least mostly factual. The strom in the teapot, is because the article as it was, was nothing more than a Miffy version of History. "Hitler planned a putsch in a beer hall. The army storms the room. Hitler trips and falls. Look, Hitler is unharmed. Hitler escapes." That has nothing to do with a serious entry on this guy. Thats why I was glad that you at least infused some factual material, even if it's from another site. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

:*Then the purpose of posting here, before you ascertained any of the facts, was what, exactly? I am not looking to beat this horse, but I think my comments were valid, and my solution, quoting one of the foremost experts on the "Final Solution" and Adolf Hitler was better than what was going on. Sometimes one can and should copy. Only this wasn't even that, just my dumb mistake to leave the attribution off the final compilation, even though the quotes and link are on my Word copy of it. The point is, it explains who and what Hitler was. As for the rest of the page, if you all could stop sniping at one another, and hammer it all out on the talk page, it would be even better. I almost removed all the rest of the crap there, and perhaps I should have, and only transfered over what was posted and cited on the talk page. Do you think that would have been a better solution? I just get a bit riled when people run around shouting "dishonest" without ever looking at the facts present, or at least having the decency to ask. Now, why don't you get in touch, and together perhaps, since you have the interest in the topic, we can do what we can to make the page even more informative? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 06:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Didn't I say that I was actually pleased that you put the Wiesel speech into the article. I'm happy to say it again. I was glad about your material, and I was looking forward for it to be intergrated with the rest, or even replace the rest, where possible. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

Please feel free to make a new header on the talk page, and give me your thoughts. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia maintenance]]

== John Howard article ==

This article appears to have a history of silly edits. The latest is by the aptly named "Not a Conservative". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=56564&oldid=54024 Here] it is. I suggest he be blocked. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Doesn't Australia have a house of Commons? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the Federal Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The various State Parliaments have their own upper and lower houses excepting Queensland which did away with its upper house at some point. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:okay. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abuse of sysop priviledge ==
There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. [[User:RobS| RobS]] first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on [[Liberals]]. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But [[User:RobS|RobS]] now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only [[User:RobS|RobS]] can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. [[User:Order | Order]] 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

*I unlocked Hitler. I locked it. What is the problem with it now, Order? Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, his problems weren't just with [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] but with [[Liberals]], too. That came out wrong. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that [[User:RobS]] probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article show that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example

** Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
** Next edit on 22 March by [[User:RobS]].
** First edit says ''protection of all of God's creation'' '''even if advocated by atheists'''. Bold added by [[User:RobS]]. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessarily offensive.
** Same edit he adds '''opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy'''. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.
** Calling liberal parties in Europe '''so-called''' ''moderate and center-right''. The is nothing '''so-called''' about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. [[User:RobS]] just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.
** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.
** Next few edits he fixes typos.
** Then, after his claim that liberals reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
*** First to show that there exists a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a ''liberal'' position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might added the quoye for the following reason:
***He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
** When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
:Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, which [[User:RobS]] just reverts, usually without much discussion. In this way he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. [[User:Order]] 23 March 16:20 (AEST)

*I would submit that, even though I have had occasional differences with Rob, as all of you have been witness to, I find his writing and contributions, as does Andrew Schlafly‎, to be superlative. He made many valuable contributions to the Ronald Reagan page, as well as the Hitler page. He has had two or three recent articles (that he made) made featured pages here, by Andrew. Try to remember that this is the Conservapedia. As it should be, things will be represented from that point of view. Many parties in the EC are called "moderate" and, as viewed from here, by Conservatives, they are anything but.

:As to Liberals and Human Rights, President Carter for example, I see his concern for such rights certainly blossomed since he left the White House, which is good, as his record there, aside from babble, was pretty dismal on real actions. One would note that real dollar aide to Africa, Sudan in particular, and AIDS Relief, has been increased some 200% under current President Bush, as opposed to President Clinton. You've got the wrong person here to repeat crap you get from liberal websites and blogs here. Any of you can IM me and have a dialog where I can point you to factual information, pro and con, on almost any recent administration. I can safely say, Jimmy Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like, and his support of them, if not such a tragedy, would be laughable. One notes that recently some of his closest associates have publicly and reluctantly, questioned his judgement, with the anti-Semitic statements he has made the last year or so. I just chalk it up to age.

:Finally, let me say something about ''communication''. IMO, most of the people here, including Andrew, are pretty poor at it. One cannot write major articles, contribute, and hammer out compromises, merely posting back and forth in the discussion pages. More of you should be using the IM's from whatever service, to ask questions and receive answers speedily, and to clear up budding misunderstandings. Instead, doing as most of you seem to want, we are saddled with a bunch of crying to "Uncle Andy" about all manner of bull that has nothing to do with this wiki. And please spare the crap about privacy. On any of the IM services, one can create a user ID in seconds, completely shielding this valued "privacy". It seems too many are so hell-bent on "protecting" their ideology, compromise and cooperation are completely impossible. It makes me wonder if all of you were like the class snitch back in grade school. Everyone is pretty quick to post crying to Andy, writing up "abuse" here, labeling whatever work someone does that you disagree with as "vandalism". Yet, when I check, I don't see posts on whoever is being complained about's talk page. Nooooo....no one can be man enough to do that, instead everyone runs to "tell teacher". Such actions, IMO, are cowardly, and not at all logical, but maybe most of you guys were used to getting beat up in elementary school. Yeah, when I get ticked off, I am a bit extra blunt, sorry if some of you are "fragile". Please don't sue me for emotional distress. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dude, you really need to breathe a little, maybe count to ten before typing. Who exactly are you addressing with that? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I should add that I looked at RobS contribution when he was mangling the Hitler article, and I was surprised that he did indeed write some decent and good articles. The more I was puzzled, why he did so poor on the Hitler article. There he mostly added factual errors. In the article about ''Liberals'' he did not add too many factual errors, but turned a fairly factual article written with a conservative perspective, into an opinion piece. And added a few factual errors. I mean, if the liberal party of Austria looks left-wing to you (this is party where Haider was chairman), I have to assume that you are even more right wing than Haider. Many conservatives in the US aren't.

But the points, even if you agree with what RobS says, its is still an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. And I can see someone who is not exposed to the world outside of the US can make a mistake, in assessing European liberal parties, he should then at least look at the talk page, do a bit of research, and not start the entire discussion all over again. This is not about content, it's about style. And RobS style is that he abuses his sysop privileges.[[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

*The culture here, dude. Most of the above should have been on the talk page at Liberal, I guess, or at RobS's talk page. Everything under the sun, to some, seems to be "abuse". It is rapidly becoming the most over-used word in the world. Whatever happened to actually chatting with one another, directly? I guess most of you won't get it. :S --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:There has been a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page of "Liberals". The frustrating bit is that RobS willingly does not seem to care and do he want to do anyway. Look at the history of Liberals, and also at the history of the Hitler article. [[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

*I will, and I am going to ask a couple of other Sysops who haven't contributed to the pages in question, to have a look also. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Any progress on the bad Hitler article has now stalled, because [[User:RoBS]] remains uncooperative. [[User:Order| Order]] 26 March. 9:00 (AEST)

:::Okay, I'll unprotect it. Let's see what happens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, thanks for the consult. :S We are trying to stop this from happening by contacting the person who last locked it, before reversing their actions, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Users to watch ==

"The Phelpster" (possibly obsessed with Phelps)
"Hojimawang" (awfully close to our highly valued Sysop)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both already blocked for impersonation/inappropriate username. Sorry, but having a username as "The Phelpster" is completely unnecessary, and isn't going to cut it here. And "Hojimawang"? I don't think so... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Now time for more BORF-hunting! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Some idiot keeps registering nonsense names about Hitler being a sensitive man. [[User:Sensitivity + Man = Hitler|Sensitivity + Man = Hitler]] 14:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*BORF. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I am officially nominating [[User:NeverForget]] as a BORF. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I'm being hounded and threatened! ==

Hojimachong is threatening me for "incivility and name-calling" when the reality is that I'm the one being hounded by these people. See my talk page. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Please explain. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:That would be tough, as he's been blocked. For the record, Hoji did no such thing, ask him or Mtn. Dew about it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, I wouldn't want to disturb you Kings. Is there someplace one could look, to see why he was blocked? You could just IM me, its on the masthead of my page, dude. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't block him or have anything to do with his blocking. I was just trying to let you know what happened. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Dew was kind enough to fill me in, and un-delete his user talk page. I appreciate you trying to fill me in. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Richard's Hit List'''
An inherently abusive article. Should be removed. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 20:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you link to that? I can't find it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 20:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Check it out. [[User talk:Richard/Conservapedia Liberal List]]

Mr. PalMD has whined about this on several talk pages. He asked to be added. I added him. It is just a list of people I want to monitor closely (I have a bad memory and it helps to have links close to the task at hand). Many liberals have even been helpful in identifying themselves. It is only used to monitor liberal bias. Although one other sysop has helpfully added to it, it is mainly my personal page. I encourage you to check it out and check those listed and watch their edits as many are here just to add liberal bias to otherwise good articles (I don't mind help). I've been pretty respectful about the whole thing, the liberals have been name calling (or trying to). Note that it is NOT in fact an article it is a note in my userspace. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

File talk:Whippedslave.JPG

2007-03-26T23:36:47Z

Richard: New page: I do not remember for sure (so no source) but IIRC this image comes from a western US slave. The western states were known to be more brutal in an ever more state of seeking efficiency wh...

I do not remember for sure (so no source) but IIRC this image comes from a western US slave. The western states were known to be more brutal in an ever more state of seeking efficiency where the south was governed by strong traditions and expectations that kept a certain social order. Would be good to point out that the picture may or may not be related to southern slavery in the "American Civil War" article. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 19:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

American Civil War

2007-03-26T23:33:14Z

Richard: changed titles to match order of flags in the picture for clarity

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|War of Northern Aggression (Southern)
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|American Civil War (Union)
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The worst war ever fought in American history, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

==Names==
The American Civil War has been called by other titles: the '''War Between the States''' and the '''War of Northern Aggression''' are popular titles in the South, as is the informal title '''The Lost Cause'''. Officially, the United States government has called it the '''War of the Rebellion'''. The term "civil war" is most accurate, as it not only involved state against state from a common country, but the splitting of families as well; fathers would take sides against sons, and brother would fight against brother in many battles. In one sad case, Private Wesley Culp of the 2nd Virginia Regiment would die for the Confederacy at the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], killed on his father's farm. (TL 15, pp. 154-155)

==Prelude to war==
===Description of the North prior to 1860===
The chief characteristic of the North was its industrialization, which was rapid. Plants to manufacture metal goods sprang up almost as fast as they were invented, and after manufacture they spread quickly. One example was [[John Deere]], who in 1840 was manufacturing a new stainless-steel plow that he had invented barely three years before; by 1848 the plows were selling at the rate of a thousand a year. By 1857, Deere and his partner had expanded with the manufacture of so much farm equipment that the Middle West was made the country's greatest wheat-producing area. Farm equipment also included the first examples of steam-powered plows, and in 1859 there were contests as to who could build and deploy the best plow. One such plow at a contest at Freeport, Illinois caused an official committee to declare the machine could "plow 25 acres a day at 62.5 cents an acre" versus a normal manual charge of $2.50 an acre. (Nevins, pg 166-168)

Inventions were not limited to farming. Locomotives, sewing machines, shoe peggers, reapers, augers, turbines, hydraulics, power looms, rotary presses, and more seemingly raced out of factories. Standardization was also an American invention, meaning replacement parts could be made and ordered to replace something broken within the machine instead of replacing the machine itself, as Connecticut's [[Samuel Colt]] first demonstrated with his new revolver. And to keep up with the exporting demand, Northern shipyards produced so many ships that they threatened to eclipse their chief rival, Great Britain. (TL 1, pg 18)

The North was also a melting pot of immigration. Northern cities were crowded and boisterous, and expanding rapidly. New York's population had jumped from 515,000 to 814,000 in the 1850's; Chicago's had gone from its 1837 incorporation with barely more than 4,000 people to over 112,000 by 1860. (TL 1, pg 16)

===Description of the South prior to 1860===
The South was largly agrarian. A Southern boast, "Cotton is king!" became very true by the 1850's, as cotton was grown, harvested, and shipped to market in vast quantities. The number of bales in 1849 was 2 million; by 1859 it had jumped to 5.7 million, amounting to more than half of all American exports and seven-eighths of the total amount of cotton in the world. (TL 1, pg 10)

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women. The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied astudiously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing rolled iron, one which produced gunpowder, and none capable of producing firearms; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all railroad mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===Slavery===
[[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]
Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.

Yet the "peculiar institution" cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was the Southern institution of slavery. Africans have been present as slaves just after the first English colonists arrived early in the 17th century; over the years the South began to see it less as an evil and more of a necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838 that "many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world" (TL 1, pg 40).

The slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, "until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night" (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; four out of 100 lived past age 60. And they were required to absolute respect to a white. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the result of pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote "the flesh crawls upon my bones" (TL 1, pp 49-58)

Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.

===Political machinations and compromises===
The '''Missouri Compromise of 1820''' allowed for the entry of Maine into the Union as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of the 36°30′ parallel, or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of "free negroes and mulattoes". Under Whig Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial exclusionary clause should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. The compromise seemed deliberately ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattos did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named Dred Scott. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]

Another crisis arose from the request of the California Territory to be admitted to the Union as a free state; this was complicated by territory acquired in the southwest as a result of the [[Mexican War]] of 1848 and whether to extend slavery there. An omnibus bill drafted by Henry Clay called the '''Compromise of 1850''' tried to give satisfaction to the southern states in addition to California's admission: the settlement of the Texas-New Mexico border dispute; the slavery question open for voting via popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories as they were organized; the end of slave trading in the District of Columbia; and tough requirements concerning runaway slaves. [http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850]

All five measures were enacted in September, 1850 as a result of the efforts and support of Democratic senator [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and Whig senator [[Daniel Webster]], and were accepted by moderates throughout the country as well as postponing Souther secession for another decade. But the seeds of discord were planted; the precident of popular sovereignty, championed by Douglas as the way for the public to vote whether or not they wanted slavery in their territories, led to the Kansas territory agitating for a similar provision. And the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] that was a part of the Compromise was so bitterly condemned that many moderates who have ignored slavery in the past became determined opponents to any extention of the institution into the territories. Many would risk jail rather than turn over runaway slaves to their owners as required by the new laws.

The '''[[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]''' (May 30, 1854), sponsored by Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska, using his principle the idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas had written the act in an effort to slow or halt the sectarianism over slavery's extension, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act merely increased the flames, and was attacked by free-soil and abolitionists as a capitulation to those who supported slavery. The Whig Party, ineffective in preventing it, largely disintegrated, and the Republican Party was born and soon became a viable political organization opposed to territorial expansion of slavery. Unfortunately on the heels of the act a migration of those for and against slavery would leave Missouri and seek to influence elections in the Kansas Territory, the result of which became a violent skirmishes known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', culminating in the burning of a hotel and printing press in Lawrence on May 21, 1856 by pro-slavery men (a much more violent attack on Lawrence would occur the following August); an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers would retaliate against five pro-slavery men a few days later, by hacking them to death with broadswords. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

The day after the hotel in Lawrence was burned, a Southern Congressman named Breston Brooks of South Carolina, incenced over an anti-slavery speech given by Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, walked onto the senate floor and beat him with a cane so severely that Sumner took three years to recover. (CWA, pg 38)

===Dred Scott decision===
Dred Scott was a slave owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of Wisconsin, a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':
*Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.
*Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.
*The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.
What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393]

The decision further frictionalized North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.

===Emergence of Lincoln===
[[Image:Abraham-lincoln-cooper-union.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860.]]
[[Image:SDouglas.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Stephen A. Douglas, about 1858.]]
The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused much opposition in the country and led to the collapse of the Whig Party as an effective political organization. Many former Whigs, whose beliefs included the abolishment of slavery, flocked to the newly-formed [[Republican Party]]; their number would include a lawyer from Illinois who used the act to jump back into politics after a five-year absence, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln launched his campaign for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in Springfield on June 16, 1858. The speech he gave has been called the "House Divided" speech, after the opening lines:

:''If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.'' [http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm]

===Raid on Harpers Ferry===
During the spring of 1858 John Brown held a meeting in Ontario between blacks and whites in which he stated his intentions to form a stronghold in the mountains between Virginia and Maryland for escaped slaves, even going so far as to adopt his own provisional constitution for the United States, which his group adopted. Several prominent Boston abolitionists also gave him financial and moral support.

By summer, 1859, Brown was in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the river from the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia; with him was an armed band of sixteen whites and five blacks. On the night of October 16, he raided the armoury and taken some sixty of the area's leading men as hostages, and hoped that slaves would get word of his forming an "army of emancipation", escape, and fight with him to liberate their fellow slaves. For the next thiry hours he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning a small force of United States Marines led by Army colonel [[Robert E. Lee]] had quickly broken into the arsenal building, wounding Brown, and killing two of his sons and ten other followers. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection, and treason, and at the end he was convicted and hanged. The day he was to die he spoke no last words, merely handing a note to a guard on which he had written a last, prophetic statement: ''"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."'' (TL 1, pp. 70-89)

===1860 Presidential campaign===
==1861==
===Secession of the Southern states===
[[image:President-Jefferson-Davis.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Jefferson Davis, after assuming the office of President of the Confederate States of America.]]

===Ft. Sumter===

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)

==Links==
===The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion===
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
===General===
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
===Prelude to war===
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html Kansas-Nebraska act]
*[http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 Compromise of 1850]
*[http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html Text of the Fugitive Slave Law]
===Emergence of Lincoln===
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]

===1860 Presidential Campaign===
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Civil War]]

Jesse Helms

2007-03-26T23:30:33Z

Richard: Reverted edits by Murray (Talk); changed back to last version by Epicurius

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Ethel Mae Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

In 1970, Helms left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to the Presidential Candidate George McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other affirmative action programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Humanitarian ==

Jesse Helms continued to work on his humanitarian causes after leaving office until he became incapacitated. Since then others continue his work in his name. His approach encourages individual and organization charity rather than government intervention. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org</ref>

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:American Civil War

2007-03-26T17:27:47Z

Richard:

The main issue may have been states' rights... but specifically it was the states' right to keep slavery. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate Names for Civil War ==

According to a friend of mine in Atlanta, the older generation is still known to refer to it as "The Late Great Unpleasantness" :-D [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 19:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: If you can find a resource supporting that, feel free to add it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's why it's here in the Talk page; I don't have a source other than the friend in question. Just thought it might be worth a chuckle. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I see. I looked it up on google and found a few sites that actually use the phrase. Think it's worth mentioning? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Civil war is not the most accurate term, since a civil war is (according to m-w.com) a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. The American "Civil War" was a war between the U.S. and a group of states who believed themselves to be of another country. Thus the term civil war really depends on if you consider the Confederacy to be part of the U.S. or not. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Going to remake this article==
My layout to expand this article will be based around the following subheading plan:
*Intro paragraph
*Prelude to war
**Description of North prior to 1850
**Description of South prior to 1850
**Slavery
**Political machinations and compromises
**Dred Scott decision
**John Brown
**1860 Presidential campaign
*1861
**Secession of the Southern states
**Ft Sumter, etc for 1861
*same for 1862,63,64,65...detailing battles and other events for each year of the war.
*Lincoln's death
*Reconstruction
*Innovations during the war; detailing weapons, the ''Hunley'', etc.
*Foreign affairs; the Trent affair, the use of cotton as a bargaining tool, the South's attempts at foreign recognition, etc.
*Use of blacks as troops
*Deaths during the war
*Effects of the war
The article will include detailed maps and photos where needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds excellent. I had been considering making an article about the Kansas-Missouri border skirmishes, but that seems to be covered under what you have planned. I look forward to seeing the end product. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, anyone can jump in and contribute, as long as this basic plan is followed. I'm going to start by Monday...as soon as some college essays are typed and finished. I hate college essays! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Insult of a flag. ==

Please, if a C.S.A. flag is going to be put up, at least put up the correct flag, or at least a properly shaped battle flag. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The flag I used was the CSA naval jack, which is the most familiar flag to readers, plus the Union flag then in use. The arrangement of the flags in this maner I did deliberately after a similar arrangement which was part of the standard used for the Gettysburg 50th Anniversary Reunion of both Union and Confederate soldiers in Gettysburg, PA, 1913. I would use the standard itself if I can get a good picture of it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The flag/table that is here in this article can also be used for every article on the Civil War in Conservapedia as a tie-in. If the table was used for Gettysburg, we'd alter it to include the leading commanders, number of men engaged, casuaties, etc. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Found the logo in question, from Time-Life Books in their Civil War series, and this one illustrated the cover to a program on the Battle of Gettysburg 1938 Reunion (not 1913). I made my own version of it, and so far I think it looks good. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's still not the C.S.A. flag. That's a misshapen battle flag (which was a square flag). If the third National flag of the C.S.A. was used, I think it would be much more appropriate. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is not a mis-shapen battle flag; it was the rectangular design crafted for use as a naval jack onboard CSA warships. This is attested from period paintings, photographs, the files from the Official Records, and other sources. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Touché ;) I would still prefer the third National flag be used, as it was the official flag of the C.S.A., but that's just my feelings. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Prelude to war subheading==
So far I'm working on what you see here. In the heading titled "political machinations" I would like to have more than just the Missouri Compromise. Such would include the Compromise of 1850, Kansas/Nebraska act, and so forth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Southern Titles==
The article is titled "American Civil War" and as such I'm not going to allow the intro paragraph to be overburdened by additional names. But there are Southern titles for this war, and I've included them in a separate subheading, including why the name "civil war" is more accurate. The article as a whole will remain neutral.

As far as battles are concerned, they will be called by both names where practical. '''First Bull Run''' will also have '''First Manassas''' side-by-side in a "North/South" fashion when that info is presented, and so on for any other battle where that battle is known by both names. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Deadliest war ==

The article states the Civil War was "[t]he deadliest war ever fought in American history...". Does the term "American history" confine the observation to American civil wars? If so there really only has been one that I am aware of (so it's not much of a comparison). Also, I understand that the US had some involvement in the First and Second World Wars for example. I think about 50 million died in the Second World War. Was that war part of American history? In which case it was more deadly than the Civil War. Or does the word "deadliest" only apply to American casualties? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "deadliest" was a replacement by Myk over a word I had used: "worst". As to what you're implying, the Civil War was THE worst war we had fought, for two reasons: 1) in terms of casualty versus population percentage it was higher than any other war we fought in, and in terms of battle deaths there were more men lost in the Civil War than in every other war that we had fought in combined, leaving out WWII. And 2), there is no war that is worse than a civil war, because the very nature of the war tears apart the country, which is what nearly happened back in the 1860's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Worst might also imply that it was a war in which we fought poorly in, can it not? I would use deadliest, even if it is a slightly non-encyclopaedic word, because of the reasons stated above. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bleeding Kansas==

Very minor point, but I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with the claim that "Bleeding Kansas" culminated with the Lawrence raid/Brown massacre, because there were a few other events after 1856, such as the Marais Des Cygnes massacre of 1858. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's part of the "Bleeding Kansas" episode, which can be briefly addressed here...in fact, writeups of battles and events are briefly listed here. What I want to do is complete this, and make it as large as possible, then use the article as a template for every event listed for the Civil War (I just added the table to the [[Battle of Gettysburg]]). What I need for this article is several (free domain) USA maps that chronicle the changes in the country from 1850-1861, and several strategic battle maps that show the movements of armies across the country; the blockade; a detailed look at the battles within the Virginia area. Other pics an be added later as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll see what I can find for that, although I have had problems uploading images on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations/Protection? ==

This article has a strange lack of citations. Only one section, as far as I can see, has any citations at all, and yet in the introduction paragraph itself there are quite a few basic facts (like all the things that came out of the factories at "near break neck speed", a phrase I'm not particularly happy with in an encyclopedia). I would add some, or at least add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> a bit, but it is protected.
'''Why is this article protected'''? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is protected because I am working on it. And there are citations, in parenthesis, from the books I am continuing to use, one of which includes the phrase "break-neck speed". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== War of Northern Aggression ==

It is common to list the name of the war for each of the participants in internationalist media. Because each of the participants are American I feel strongly that both most common titles should be listed. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 13:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the table, I thought the title you mentioned would have been too over-bearing, at least from within that block. But on the other side, I think it would be a good idea to expand this table a bit, for more quick, "at-a-glance" info. Perhaps change it to add additional lines for these titles, in blue for Union, gray for Confederate, and so on. And if you look at these stubs with which I included this table, they can be changed to suit the page: [[Battle of Gettysburg]] [[Battle of Hampton Roads]].

:On this page, I wanted to be as complete as possible up to Fort Sumter, and then I was going to start on the war. Want to help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think I did as you suggest. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 13:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

American Civil War

2007-03-26T17:27:05Z

Richard:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:CWLogo.JPG|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|American Civil War (Union)
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|War of Northern Aggression (Southern)
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The worst war ever fought in American history, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

==Names==
The American Civil War has been called by other titles: the '''War Between the States''' and the '''War of Northern Aggression''' are popular titles in the South, as is the informal title '''The Lost Cause'''. Officially, the United States government has called it the '''War of the Rebellion'''. The term "civil war" is most accurate, as it not only involved state against state from a common country, but the splitting of families as well; fathers would take sides against sons, and brother would fight against brother in many battles. In one sad case, Private Wesley Culp of the 2nd Virginia Regiment would die for the Confederacy at the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], killed on his father's farm. (TL 15, pp. 154-155)

==Prelude to war==
===Description of the North prior to 1860===
The chief characteristic of the North was its industrialization, which was rapid. Plants to manufacture metal goods sprang up almost as fast as they were invented, and after manufacture they spread quickly. One example was [[John Deere]], who in 1840 was manufacturing a new stainless-steel plow that he had invented barely three years before; by 1848 the plows were selling at the rate of a thousand a year. By 1857, Deere and his partner had expanded with the manufacture of so much farm equipment that the Middle West was made the country's greatest wheat-producing area. Farm equipment also included the first examples of steam-powered plows, and in 1859 there were contests as to who could build and deploy the best plow. One such plow at a contest at Freeport, Illinois caused an official committee to declare the machine could "plow 25 acres a day at 62.5 cents an acre" versus a normal manual charge of $2.50 an acre. (Nevins, pg 166-168)

Inventions were not limited to farming. Locomotives, sewing machines, shoe peggers, reapers, augers, turbines, hydraulics, power looms, rotary presses, and more seemingly raced out of factories. Standardization was also an American invention, meaning replacement parts could be made and ordered to replace something broken within the machine instead of replacing the machine itself, as Connecticut's [[Samuel Colt]] first demonstrated with his new revolver. And to keep up with the exporting demand, Northern shipyards produced so many ships that they threatened to eclipse their chief rival, Great Britain. (TL 1, pg 18)

The North was also a melting pot of immigration. Northern cities were crowded and boisterous, and expanding rapidly. New York's population had jumped from 515,000 to 814,000 in the 1850's; Chicago's had gone from its 1837 incorporation with barely more than 4,000 people to over 112,000 by 1860. (TL 1, pg 16)

===Description of the South prior to 1860===
The South was largly agrarian. A Southern boast, "Cotton is king!" became very true by the 1850's, as cotton was grown, harvested, and shipped to market in vast quantities. The number of bales in 1849 was 2 million; by 1859 it had jumped to 5.7 million, amounting to more than half of all American exports and seven-eighths of the total amount of cotton in the world. (TL 1, pg 10)

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women. The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied astudiously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing rolled iron, one which produced gunpowder, and none capable of producing firearms; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all railroad mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===Slavery===
===Political machinations and compromises===
The '''Missouri Compromise of 1820''' allowed for the entry of Maine into the Union as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of the 36°30′ parallel, or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of "free negroes and mulattoes". Under Whig Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial exclusionary clause should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. The compromise seemed deliberately ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattos did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named Dred Scott. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]

Another crisis arose from the request of the California Territory to be admitted to the Union as a free state; this was complicated by territory acquired in the southwest as a result of the [[Mexican War]] of 1848 and whether to extend slavery there. An omnibus bill drafted by Henry Clay called the '''Compromise of 1850''' tried to give satisfaction to the southern states in addition to California's admission: the settlement of the Texas-New Mexico border dispute; the slavery question open for voting via popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories as they were organized; the end of slave trading in the District of Columbia; and tough requirements concerning runaway slaves. [http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850]

All five measures were enacted in September, 1850 as a result of the efforts and support of Democratic senator [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and Whig senator [[Daniel Webster]], and were accepted by moderates throughout the country as well as postponing Souther secession for another decade. But the seeds of discord were planted; the precident of popular sovereignty, championed by Douglas as the way for the public to vote whether or not they wanted slavery in their territories, led to the Kansas territory agitating for a similar provision. And the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] that was a part of the Compromise was so bitterly condemned that many moderates who have ignored slavery in the past became determined opponents to any extention of the institution into the territories. Many would risk jail rather than turn over runaway slaves to their owners as required by the new laws.

The '''[[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]''' (May 30, 1854), sponsored by Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska, using his principle the idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas had written the act in an effort to slow or halt the sectarianism over slavery's extension, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act merely increased the flames, and was attacked by free-soil and abolitionists as a capitulation to those who supported slavery. The Whig Party, ineffective in preventing it, largely disintegrated, and the Republican Party was born and soon became a viable political organization opposed to territorial expansion of slavery. Unfortunately on the heels of the act a migration of those for and against slavery would leave Missouri and seek to influence elections in the Kansas Territory, the result of which became a short conflict known as [[Bleeding Kansas]], culminating in the May 21, 1856 sack of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery men, and a massacre of a family a few days later by an abolitionist force led by a religious fanatic named [[John Brown]]. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

===Dred Scott decision===
Dred Scott was a slave owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of Wisconsin, a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':
*Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.
*Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.
*The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.
What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393]

The decision further frictionalized North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.

===Emergence of Lincoln===
The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused much opposition in the country and led to the collapse of the Whig Party as an effective political organization. Many former Whigs, whose beliefs included the abolishment of slavery, flocked to the newly-formed [[Republican Party]]; their number would include a lawyer from Illinois who used the act to jump back into politics after a five-year absence, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln launched his campaign for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in Springfield on June 16, 1858. The speech he gave has been called the "House Divided" speech, after the opening lines:

:''If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.'' [http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm]

===Raid on Harpers Ferry===
During the spring of 1858 John Brown held a meeting in Ontario between blacks and whites in which he stated his intentions to form a stronghold in the mountains between Virginia and Maryland for escaped slaves, even going so far as to adopt his own provisional constitution for the United States, which his group adopted. Several prominent Boston abolitionists also gave him financial and moral support.

By summer, 1859, Brown was in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the river from the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia; with him was an armed band of sixteen whites and five blacks. On the night of October 16, he raided the armoury and taken some sixty of the area's leading men as hostages, and hoped that slaves would get word of his forming an "army of emancipation", escape, and fight with him to liberate their fellow slaves. For the next thiry hours he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning a small force of United States Marines led by Army colonel [[Robert E. Lee]] had quickly broken into the arsenal building, wounding Brown, and killing two of his sons and ten other followers. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection, and treason, and at the end he was convicted and hanged. The day he was to die he spoke no last words, merely handing a note to a guard on which he had written a last, prophetic statement: ''"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."'' (TL 1, pp. 70-89)

===1860 Presidential campaign===
==1861==
===Secession of the Southern states===
===Ft. Sumter===

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)

==Links==
===The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion===
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
===General===
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
===Prelude to war===
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html Kansas-Nebraska act]
*[http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 Compromise of 1850]
*[http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html Text of the Fugitive Slave Law]
===Emergence of Lincoln===
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]

===1860 Presidential Campaign===
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Civil War]]

Talk:American Civil War

2007-03-26T17:04:28Z

Richard:

American Civil War

2007-03-26T17:02:16Z

Richard: war of northern aggression deserves more prominant display.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:CWLogo.JPG|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|American Civil War/War of Northern Aggression
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The worst war ever fought in American history, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

==Names==
The American Civil War has been called by other titles: the '''War Between the States''' and the '''War of Northern Aggression''' are popular titles in the South, as is the informal title '''The Lost Cause'''. Officially, the United States government has called it the '''War of the Rebellion'''. The term "civil war" is most accurate, as it not only involved state against state from a common country, but the splitting of families as well; fathers would take sides against sons, and brother would fight against brother in many battles. In one sad case, Private Wesley Culp would die for the Confederacy at the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], just feet from his father's farm house.

==Prelude to war==
===Description of the North prior to 1860===
The chief characteristic of the North was its industrialization, which was rapid. Plants to manufacture metal goods sprang up almost as fast as they were invented, and after manufacture they spread quickly. One example was [[John Deere]], who in 1840 was manufacturing a new stainless-steel plow that he had invented barely three years before; by 1848 the plows were selling at the rate of a thousand a year. By 1857, Deere and his partner had expanded with the manufacture of so much farm equipment that the Middle West was made the country's greatest wheat-producing area. Farm equipment also included the first examples of steam-powered plows, and in 1859 there were contests as to who could build and deploy the best plow. One such plow at a contest at Freeport, Illinois caused an official committee to declare the machine could "plow 25 acres a day at 62.5 cents an acre" versus a normal manual charge of $2.50 an acre. (Nevins, pg 166-168)

Inventions were not limited to farming. Locomotives, sewing machines, shoe peggers, reapers, augers, turbines, hydraulics, power looms, rotary presses, and more raced out of factories at near break-neck speed. Standardization was also an American invention, as Connecticutt's Samuel Colt demonstrated with his revolver which had interchangable parts. To keep up with the exporting demand, Northern shipyards produced so many ships that they threatened to eclipse their chief rival, Great Britain. (TL 1, pg 18)

The North was also a melting pot of immigration. Northern cities were crowded and boisterous, and expanding rapidly. New York's population had jumped from 515,000 to 814,000 in the 1850's; Chicago's had gone from its 1837 incorporation with barely more than 4,000 people to over 112,000 by 1860. (TL 1, pg 16)

===Description of the South prior to 1860===
The South was largly agrarian. A Southern boast, "Cotton is king!" became very true by the 1850's, as cotton was grown, harvested, and shipped to market in vast quantities. The number of bales in 1849 was 2 million; by 1859 it had jumped to 5.7 million, amounting to more than half of all American exports and seven-eighths of the total amount of cotton in the world. (TL 1, pg 10)

Southern life was set by a landed gentry, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, kindness towards those of inferior status, a code of honor among equals, and a gallantry towards women. The money made from cotton was spent on goods manufactured in the North, as well as imports from Europe. They had a taste for well-bred horses, quality firearms, foxhounds, and the belles from fine Southern families. And they also studied astudiously the arts of war, often spending large sums of money to send themselves or their sons to military schools. One Mississippi planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South "did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms." (TL 1, pg 12)

But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves, versus more than 21 million in the North. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing rolled iron, one which produced gunpowder, and none capable of producing firearms; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in Massachusetts alone. More than 70% of all railroad mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.

===Slavery===
===Political machinations and compromises===
The '''Missouri Compromise of 1820''' allowed for the entry of Maine into the Union as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of the 36°30′ parallel, or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of "free negroes and mulattoes". Under Whig Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial exclusionary clause should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. The compromise seemed deliberately ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattos did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named Dred Scott. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]

Another crisis arose from the request of the California Territory to be admitted to the Union as a free state; this was complicated by territory acquired in the southwest as a result of the [[Mexican War]] of 1848 and whether to extend slavery there. An omnibus bill drafted by Henry Clay called the '''Compromise of 1850''' tried to give satisfaction to the southern states in addition to California's admission: the settlement of the Texas-New Mexico border dispute; the slavery question open for voting via popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories as they were organized; the end of slave trading in the District of Columbia; and tough requirements concerning runaway slaves. [http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850]

All five measures were enacted in September, 1850 as a result of the efforts and support of Democratic senator [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and Whig senator [[Daniel Webster]], and were accepted by moderates throughout the country as well as postponing Souther secession for another decade. But the seeds of discord were planted; the precident of popular sovereignty, championed by Douglas as the way for the public to vote whether or not they wanted slavery in their territories, led to the Kansas territory agitating for a similar provision. And the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] that was a part of the Compromise was so bitterly condemned that many moderates who have ignored slavery in the past became determined opponents to any extention of the institution into the territories. Many would risk jail rather than turn over runaway slaves to their owners as required by the new laws.

The '''[[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]''' (May 30, 1854), sponsored by Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska, using his principle the idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas had written the act in an effort to slow or halt the sectarianism over slavery's extension, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act merely increased the flames, and was attacked by free-soil and abolitionists as a capitulation to those who supported slavery. The Whig Party, ineffective in preventing it, largely disintegrated, and the Republican Party was born and soon became a viable political organization opposed to territorial expansion of slavery. Unfortunately on the heels of the act a migration of those for and against slavery would leave Missouri and seek to influence elections in the Kansas Territory, the result of which became a short conflict known as [[Bleeding Kansas]], culminating in the May 21, 1856 sack of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery men, and a massacre of a family a few days later by an abolitionist force led by a religious fanatic named [[John Brown]]. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]

===Dred Scott decision===
Dred Scott was a slave owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of Wisconsin, a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':
*Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.
*Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.
*The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.
What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393]

The decision further frictionalized North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.

===Emergence of Lincoln===
The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused much opposition in the country and led to the collapse of the Whig Party as an effective political organization. Many former Whigs, whose beliefs included the abolishment of slavery, flocked to the newly-formed [[Republican Party]]; their number would include a lawyer from Illinois who used the act to jump back into politics after a five-year absence, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln launched his campaign for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in Springfield on June 16, 1858. The speech he gave has been called the "House Divided" speech, after the opening lines:

:''If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.'' [http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm]

===Raid on Harpers Ferry===
During the spring of 1858 John Brown held a meeting in Ontario between blacks and whites in which he stated his intentions to form a stronghold in the mountains between Virginia and Maryland for escaped slaves, even going so far as to adopt his own provisional constitution for the United States, which his group adopted. Several prominent Boston abolitionists also gave him financial and moral support.

By summer, 1859, Brown was in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the river from the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia; with him was an armed band of sixteen whites and five blacks. On the night of October 16, he raided the armoury and taken some sixty of the area's leading men as hostages, and hoped that slaves would get word of his forming an "army of emancipation", escape, and fight with him to liberate their fellow slaves. For the next thiry hours he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning a small force of United States Marines led by Army colonel [[Robert E. Lee]] had quickly broken into the arsenal building, wounding Brown, and killing two of his sons and ten other followers. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection, and treason, and at the end he was convicted and hanged. The day he was to die he spoke no last words, merely handing a note to a guard on which he had written a last, prophetic statement: ''"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."'' (TL 1, pp. 70-89)

===1860 Presidential campaign===
==1861==
===Secession of the Southern states===
===Ft. Sumter===

==References==
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time, Inc, New York (1983)
*Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1947)

==Links==
===The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion===
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
===General===
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
===Prelude to war===
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html Kansas-Nebraska act]
*[http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 Compromise of 1850]
*[http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html Text of the Fugitive Slave Law]
===Emergence of Lincoln===
*[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's "House Divided" speech]

===1860 Presidential Campaign===
*[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Civil War]]

Jesse Helms

2007-03-26T16:27:56Z

Richard:

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Dot Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

The liberal George S. McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 stood for abortion, defeatism and neo-liberalism.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_9_20_04.html</ref> McGovern was the final push in the Democratic party's disastrous move from American to leftist values.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/201/201_cover_race_dems_fletcher_ed_bd.html</ref> Helms detested this and courageously left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to his liberal mentor McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other affirmative action programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Humanitarian ==

Jesse Helms continued to work on his humanitarian causes after leaving office until he became incapacitated. Since then others continue his work in his name. His approach encourages individual and organization charity rather than government intervention. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org</ref>

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Franklin D. Roosevelt

2007-03-26T13:29:18Z

Richard: roosevelt was a raging liberal...greatest president my...

{{stub}}
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), was the 32nd president of the United States of America, following [[Herbert Hoover]] and preceding [[Harry Truman]]. Roosevelt was a member of the [[Democratic Party]]. He was elected four times and served a few months longer than 3 terms, from 1933-1945, the longest any one man has been president of the United States. He was elected amidst the uncertainty of the [[Great Depression]]. After the Japanese attack on [[Pearl Harbor]], he entered the United States into the Second World War on the side of the Allied Forces. Finally, in April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage, due partly to the crippling disease, [[polio]]myelitis, which physically disabled him during his presidency.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html</ref>

Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular due to the languishing depression and then World War II, his policies directly opposed those favored by conservatives. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased the policies of foreign aid. Although some of these policies were forced due to the incredible circumstances of the great depression and devastation of WWII <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/printable.html</ref>.

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

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

:Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.

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

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

As World War II began to break out in Europe, FDR warned:

:Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same
civilization.

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

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

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]

Slavery

2007-03-25T22:09:25Z

Richard: Evening out. Europeans/Americans are not the only recent slave keepers.

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves, however later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. Some English translations use the term 'slave' while others use 'servant,' but the meanings are equivalent. For example:

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

American Civil War

2007-03-25T17:17:37Z

Richard:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Civilwarflags.JPG|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|American Civil War/War of Northern Aggression
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|Abraham Lincoln
|-
|Secretary of War
|Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|Jefferson Davis
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
The '''American Civil War''' (also referred to as the '''War of Northern Aggression''' in the southern states) was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. The worst war ever fought in American history, it involved casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, roughly three percent of the country's total population.

==Prelude to war==
===Description of the North prior to 1850===
===Description of the South prior to 1850===
===Slavery===
===Political machinations and compromises===
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed for the entry of Maine into the Union as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of Missouri or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of "free negroes and mulattoes". Under Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial exclusionary clause should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. Sometimes called "the Second Missouri Compromise", it seemed deliberately ambiguous; the compromise could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattos did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named Dred Scott. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]

===Dred Scott decision===
Dred Scott was a slave owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of Wisconsin, a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':
*Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.
*Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.
*The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.
What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393]

The decision further frictionalized North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.

===Entrance of Lincoln===
===John Brown===
===1860 Presidential campaign===
==1861==
===Secession of the Southern states===
===Ft. Sumter===

==Links==
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
===Prelude to war===
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]
[[Category:History]]
*[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]

Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T13:03:10Z

Richard: speling

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Dot Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

The liberal George S. McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 stood for abortion, defeatism and neo-liberalism.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_9_20_04.html</ref> McGovern was the final push in the Democratic party's disastrous move from American to leftist values.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/201/201_cover_race_dems_fletcher_ed_bd.html</ref> Helms detested this and courageously left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to his liberal mentor McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other so-called "Affirmative Action" type programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T06:11:52Z

Richard:

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-25T05:55:20Z

Richard: my bad... I actually think decending order would make more sense....but okay.

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-25T05:54:24Z

Richard: /* Liberal Economics */

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-25T05:51:24Z

Richard:

Herbert Hoover

2007-03-25T05:50:12Z

Richard: /* Election to Presidency */ many think that Hoover did make a difference, but no more then FDR. Yet Hoover had more sense than FDR. the start of WWII ended the depression not the New Deal.

{{stub}}
Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) was the 31st [[President of the United States of America]] following [[Calvin Coolidge]] and preceding [[Franklin Roosevelt]] and was the [[United States Secretary of Commerce]] under President [[Calvin Coolidge]], his predecessor.
==Election to Presidency==
[[Calvin Coolidge]] decided against running for reelection in 1928. As a member of his Cabinet, Hoover was nominated to the [[Republican]] ticket. He was able to use the popularity of the Coolidge Administration to win election.

He held office from 1929 to 1933 during the [[Great Depression]]. Hoover's success in fighting the economic disaster that was upon the US was not evident during his presidency, and that cost him his popularity as well as reelection. He was a [[Republican]].
[[Category:Biographies]]

Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T05:40:33Z

Richard: /* Democrat to Republican */

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Dot Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forrest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forrest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

The liberal George S. McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 stood for abortion, defeatism and neo-liberalism.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_9_20_04.html</ref> McGovern was the final push in the Democratic party's disastrous move from American to leftist values.<ref>http://www.blackcommentator.com/201/201_cover_race_dems_fletcher_ed_bd.html</ref> Helms detested this and courageously left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to his liberal mentor McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other so-called "Affirmative Action" type programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T05:35:59Z

Richard: /* Democrat to Republican */

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Dot Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forrest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forrest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

The liberal George S. McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 stood for abortion, defeatism and neo-liberalism.{{fact}} McGovern was the final push in the Democratic party's disastrous move from American to leftist values.{{who says}} Helms detested this and courageously left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to his liberal mentor McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other so-called "Affirmative Action" type programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-25T05:34:30Z

Richard:

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T05:24:24Z

Richard:

Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. (b October 18, 1921) is a former five-time Republican senator from Monroe, North Carolina. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref> Mr. Helms was born to his formidable father Jesse Helms Sr., the local chief of police, and his wife Dot Helms. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref> Mr. Helms, throughout his tenure as United States Senator was known for his staunchly conservative viewpoints, support for a strong defense, standing up for the little guy, and support for freedom. Like most staunchly conservative politicians who thumb their nose at political correctness, Helms was frequently derided in the mainstream media despite his former media connections <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref>. Helms stood up for equality under law for all Americans but often his positions were misunderstood and through biased reporting made to sound racist <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#handsad</ref>. While Helms can be called an Internationalist his support can be understood more in terms of western military alliances that strengthened US Security such as NATO as opposed to ineffective US encumbering organizations such as the UN <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic1</ref>.

== Early Life ==

=== Education ===

Mr. Helms attended public schools in his home, Monroe County. After graduating from High School, Mr. Helms attended Wingate Junior College and Wake Forrest College.

=== Pre-[[World War II]] Journalist ===

Like President [[Ronald Reagan]], Mr. Helms started his political career in the Media. In 1939, Mr. Helms quit Wake Forrest to work as a [[journalist]] on the Raleigh News and Observer. By the age of 21 Mr. Helms managed one of the paper's smaller papers. <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>

=== Military Career ===

During World War II, Mr. Helms was drafted into the Navy as a recruiter. It was during his military career that Helms discovered his knack for broadcasting.

=== WRAL Radio and AA to Senator Willis Smith ===

In 1948, became a radio news director at WRAL in Raleigh, NC. Helms reported on the heated 1950 Democratic primary for the Senate. The winner of this race, Senator Willis Smith, took him to Washington as his administrative assistant a post at which he served until 1953 staying on to become Senator Alton Lennon's assistant after Smith's untimely demise<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000463</ref>. Willis, like Helms was a conservative Southern Democrat <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. Willis's defeated opponent, the liberal Frank Porter Graham was appointed by his supporter President Harry Truman as Ambassador to the United Nations<ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=g000353</ref>. During his tenure in Washington Mr. Helms also worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary presidential campaign of Richard B. Russell, Jr.

=== Bankers Association to Capital Broadcasting ===

Helms early work in politics lead him to become the Executive director of the North Carolina Bankers Association and later the Raleigh City Council where he opposed excessive taxation and supported limiting the growth of government<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. By the mid-1960's, Helms became the executive Vice President for Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Helms directed the news operation and delivered over-the-air commentaries. Mr. Helms developed a following due to his firebrand but perceptive political commentary <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/biography.asp</ref> which often attacked the decline of morality, liberal trends in society of the time, the Federal government's dubious social engineering in the southern states and Judicial activisim <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>.

== Senate Career ==

=== Democrat to Republican ===

The liberal George S. McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 stood for abortion, defeatism and neo-liberalism.{{fact}} McGovern was the final push in the Democratic party's disastrous move from American to leftist values.{{who says}} Helms detested this and courageously left the Democratic party, which was far more popular in the South as a whole, for the Republican party, which had been the catalyst in the war of Northern Aggression a century before. Guided, in part, by the conservative policies of the Republican Candidate, Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Helms lead a victorious campaign against his opponent, Democrat Nick Galifianakis. Mr. Helms's campaign succeeded in associating Galifiankis to his liberal mentor McGovern. Galifianakis attempted to play the "race card" (Galifianakis was Greek), but voters saw through this to lend a 120,000 vote margin to Mr. Helms.{{fact}}

=== Senator No ===

Mr. Helms' opposition to increasing the role of the federal government in the lives of every day citizens earned him the title "Senator No". From his first term to his last Mr. Helms rejected nominations of unqualified liberal candidates of all races, against federal spending (except his very principaled stance for the millitary and economically and strategically sound support for federal aid for farmers), <ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-helms</ref>. At the same time Mr. Helms did support and even befriended qualified candidates whom he felt would better the country, such as Madeline Albright for US Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of State (ref: Madam Secretary, Madeline Albright). Helms was known for his bipartisan friendships despite his often strong ideological stances. However, Helms was not intractable when new information did not support his views. For instance Helms originally stood against increased funding to "stop the devastation caused by AIDS in Africa. Helms change of heart on this issue in his own words: "It had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong."

=== Moving the Party Right ===

Helms challenged the Republican party to engage the socially and economically conservative values of the American People. Helms's conservative values won him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the entire last decade he was in office and never more than 10% according to similar liberal groups. Terry O'Neill -- of the far left feminist group, the National Organization for Women -- on hearing that Helms would reacted gleefully with the statement "He has been absolutely aggressive in his attacks on women's most basic rights for years. To call him irascible would be kind. Irrational would be more like it. It's a very good thing for the country that he's leaving the Senate."

Helms stated his disbelief in the old adage that "morality cannot be legislated". Helms took an active role in campaigning and in helping the Republican party to engage these values. First in his early work for Smith, then locally and eventually in early 1980 played a key role in helping the father of modern conservative, Ronald Reagan, win the Republican primary and take the White House back from the liberal and weak president Jimmy Carter. Helms's political action committee spent over $4.6 million dollars to help Regan capture the white house <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>. Until recently, when Helms became incapacitated, in his home state of North Carolina few Conservative Republican candidates would dare run for state or national office without an endorsement from the godfather of North Carolinian conservatism, Senators Jesse Helms.

=== Foreign Policy ===

Helms believed that America should stand against dictators and help bring its values of Freedom and Democracy to the world. This belief caused Helms to stand against "Most Favored Nation" status for China (which the Reagan and Nixon Administrations supported). At the same time, Helms stood for a strong national defense and strongly opposed Communism and would occasionally compromise on the humanitarian part of his policy when it suited those aims, such was the case in his support for the dictator Augusto Pinochet. <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/principles/default.asp</ref> Helms also stood up against arms control and nuclear test-ban treaties even when some of these measures were supported by Regan himself <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>.

=== Equal Rights ===

Many in the liberal media considered Helms to be a racist in part due to his antics and standing against racial quotas and other so-called "Affirmative Action" type programs and secondly for his opposition to many African American appointees for federal office<ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2</ref>. Mr. Helms answered this charge in his biography and on his site. He stood up for qualified African American conservative candidates in the jobs for which they were qualified. He opposed liberal and unqualified African America in the posts for which they were unqualified. Mr. Helms supported candidates such as Claude Allen, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice and other conservative black candidates for the positions in which they were qualified and appointed <ref>http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic5</ref>.

== Summary ==

Helms and his conservative values can be summed up in his own words: "Compromise, hell!" Helms said. "That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes." <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8990d63719.htm</ref>