Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=ScottA Conservapedia - User contributions [en] 2026-09-23T12:18:22Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheistic_Style&diff=603502 Talk:Atheistic Style 2009-01-06T04:46:38Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>== Where's the problem? ==<br /> You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.<br /> <br /> : "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Childish==<br /> Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> :::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Smarter ==<br /> <br /> I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.<br /> <br /> On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> == My Fundamentalist Alterations ==<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...<br /> <br /> "overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."<br /> <br /> Hmm<br /> <br /> "a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"<br /> <br /> Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...<br /> <br /> "a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"<br /> <br /> Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...<br /> <br /> "an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"<br /> <br /> Hahahaha, <br /> <br /> Oh very dear...<br /> <br /> Think critically people, good day to you...</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_Style&diff=603465 Atheistic Style 2009-01-06T03:38:20Z

<p>ScottA: added evidence for athiests against god in school. Removed black hole since black holes can be detected and having it on the list made it seem silly.</p> <hr /> <div>There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:<br /> <br /> # a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]] relies on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting [[democracy]]<br /> # a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]<br /> # a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity<br /> # a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]<br /> # a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago<br /> # a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood<br /> # a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms<br /> # a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life<br /> # among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[dark matter]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space<br /> # belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths<br /> # overreliance on [[hearsay]], a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.<br /> # an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom<ref>http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/atheists_support_student_protest_of_&%238220%3Bgod_pledge&%238221%3B</ref><br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> *[[Liberal style]]<br /> {{Nb Atheism}}</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheistic_Style&diff=603459 Talk:Atheistic Style 2009-01-06T03:30:28Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>== Where's the problem? ==<br /> You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.<br /> <br /> : "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. late addition::: Wait, so when you add the united template to the page its OK, when i do it its vandalism? Despite the fact that the page actually has 0 citation? Thats a bit of a turn around, What happened to CP commandments?--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Childish==<br /> Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> :::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Smarter ==<br /> <br /> I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.<br /> <br /> On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> == My Fundamentalist Alterations ==<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...<br /> <br /> "overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."<br /> <br /> Hmm<br /> <br /> "a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"<br /> <br /> Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...<br /> <br /> "a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"<br /> <br /> Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...<br /> <br /> "an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"<br /> <br /> Hahahaha, <br /> <br /> Oh very dear...<br /> <br /> Think critically people, good day to you...</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheistic_Style&diff=603441 Talk:Atheistic Style 2009-01-06T03:18:03Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>== Where's the problem? ==<br /> You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.<br /> <br /> : "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Childish==<br /> Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> :::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Smarter ==<br /> <br /> I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.<br /> <br /> On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> == My Fundamentalist Alterations ==<br /> <br /> '''<br /> <br /> Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...<br /> <br /> "overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."<br /> <br /> Hmm<br /> <br /> "a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"<br /> <br /> Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...<br /> <br /> "a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"<br /> <br /> Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...<br /> <br /> "an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"<br /> <br /> Hahahaha, <br /> <br /> Oh very dear...<br /> <br /> Think critically people, good day to you...</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_Style&diff=603435 Atheistic Style 2009-01-06T03:11:00Z

<p>ScottA: see talk page</p> <hr /> <div>{{uncited}}<br /> There is a style common to many [[atheists]], including:<br /> <br /> # a refusal to recognize how [[democracy]] relies on [[Christianity]], and how no [[atheistic]] culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting [[democracy]]<br /> # a refusal to credit the role played by [[faith]] in great contributions of many people, such as [[Isaac Newton]]<br /> # a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as [[love]], intrinsic beauty and fidelity<br /> # a belief that [[atheist]]s are somehow smarter than those having [[faith]], downplaying contributions by [[Christians]]<br /> # a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago<br /> # a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to [[Isaac Newton]]'s view that little is understood<br /> # a focus on [[materialism]], and a devotion to [[relativism]] in many forms<br /> # a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life<br /> # among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected [[graviton]]s, [[black holes]], [[dark matter]], [[super strings]] and life in outer space<br /> # belief in the [[Nobel Prize]], universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths<br /> # overreliance on [[hearsay]], a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.<br /> # an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> <br /> <br /> *[[Liberal style]]<br /> {{Nb Atheism}}</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_bigotry&diff=556622 Talk:Liberal bigotry 2008-11-13T23:37:25Z

<p>ScottA: minor edits</p> <hr /> <div>Guess what HelpJazz is going to ask for? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :Yay! Citations! Do I get a cookie? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Good job! You can have your cookie after you <s>eat your vegetables</s> put in the citation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> Does this page need examples of bigotry? I'm not saying the current examples aren't good examples of bigotry (most of them are), but I can't help but think that most of these examples are not put up to give a clearer understanding of bigotry, but to make a political statement. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 18:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :No, yet again, examples will never prove a point, especially when these examples are so fraught with opinion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: Examples will never prove a point? Examples are the basis of ''all argument''. They are fact. They are evidence. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::What do you mean, examples have never proven a point? Can you give an example where they've ever failed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::Sorry, maybe I missed something, why was the violence against abortion clinics removed as an example with the reason "The evidence being compiled is ample" only to be replaced with another example. If it was deleted on accident, then let me know and Ill put it back in. Also, I might just be naive, but isn't saying all members of a single group are bigots, in fact, also bigotry? The only defining characteristic of Atheists is that they don't believe in God. Some of them may be bigots, but so are some Christians, Jews, and pagans. Using an atheist who is claiming "all religious people should be locked up" is a good example of bigotry. Saying all atheists are like that is wrong. If I am correct, then the into should be changed since it is attributing bigotry to all members of the listed groups. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 18:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_bigotry&diff=556618 Talk:Liberal bigotry 2008-11-13T23:35:32Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>Guess what HelpJazz is going to ask for? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :Yay! Citations! Do I get a cookie? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Good job! You can have your cookie after you <s>eat your vegetables</s> put in the citation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> Does this page need examples of bigotry? I'm not saying the current examples aren't good examples of bigotry (most of them are), but I can't help but think that most of these examples are not put up to give a clearer understanding of bigotry, but to make a political statement. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 18:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :No, yet again, examples will never prove a point, especially when these examples are so fraught with opinion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: Examples will never prove a point? Examples are the basis of ''all argument''. They are fact. They are evidence. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::What do you mean, examples have never proven a point? Can you give an example where they've ever failed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::Sorry, maybe I missed something, why was the violence against abortion clinics removed as an example with the reason "The evidence being compiled is ample" only to be replaced with another example. If it was deleted on accident, then let me know and Ill put it back in. Also, I might just be naive, but isn't saying all members of a single group are bigots, in fact also bigotry? The only defining characteristic of Atheists is that they don't believe in God. Some of them may be bigots, but so are some Christians, Jews, and pagans. Using an atheist, claiming all religious people should be locked up is a good example. Saying all atheists are like that is wrong. If I am correct, then the into should be changed since it is attributing bigotry to all members of the listed groups. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 18:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=555020 Talk:Barack Hussein Obama 2008-11-12T03:50:25Z

<p>ScottA: /* Absence of Dancing */</p> <hr /> <div>Archives:<br /> [[/archive1|1]]<br /> [[/archive2|2]]<br /> [[/archive3|3]]<br /> [[/archive4|4]]<br /> <br /> <br /> == Disgusted Conservative ==<br /> <br /> I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.<br /> <br /> What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant. <br /> <br /> Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.<br /> <br /> :Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:<br /> <br /> 1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.<br /> <br /> 2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.<br /> <br /> 3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.<br /> <br /> 4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.<br /> <br /> 5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.<br /> <br /> You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.<br /> <br /> See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.<br /> <br /> ::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.<br /> <br /> :::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?<br /> <br /> ::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?<br /> :::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.<br /> <br /> <br /> Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.<br /> <br /> <br /> Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in<br /> <br /> ==Nation of Islam==<br /> ''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==57 Islamic states==<br /> <br /> I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp<br /> <br /> I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. <sub>unsigned JohnFA</sub><br /> <br /> This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.<br /> <br /> I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Biased==<br /> Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==<br /> <br /> there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"<br /> <br /> God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html<br /> <br /> "Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."<br /> <br /> Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp<br /> ::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Favorite black leader ==<br /> <br /> I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.<br /> <br /> :::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==<br /> <br /> What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.<br /> <br /> ::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Main Picture ==<br /> <br /> I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]<br /> <br /> : Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Taqiyya ==<br /> <br /> The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise. <br /> Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.<br /> <br /> Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise. <br /> <br /> Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Taqiyya & takeyya ==<br /> <br /> Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == wife opinions ==<br /> <br /> The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”<br /> <br /> == Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==<br /> <br /> I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}<br /> <br /> The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==<br /> In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.<br /> <br /> Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]<br /> <br /> :See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Errors and dubious claims==<br /> <br /> - The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.<br /> <br /> : A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]<br /> <br /> : Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]<br /> <br /> : Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]<br /> <br /> : 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.<br /> <br /> : It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]<br /> <br /> : Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> - If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?<br /> <br /> : You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> - Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.<br /> <br /> : Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==<br /> ''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:<br /> <br /> * Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).<br /> :Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> == Obamas Grandmother==<br /> Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.<br /> Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.<br /> Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.<br /> Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==<br /> <br /> Hello again,<br /> <br /> I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."<br /> <br /> Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.<br /> <br /> Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic<br /> <br /> :I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]<br /> <br /> == How low can you go? ==<br /> <br /> Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.<br /> <br /> :::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Berg Obama lawsuit==<br /> Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==<br /> ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Request addition==<br /> I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == First Muslim President ==<br /> <br /> I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp<br /> <br /> Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced. <br /> We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.<br /> <br /> So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.<br /> <br /> Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> "If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".<br /> The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]<br /> <br /> :The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]<br /> <br /> :::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Barack raises the bar ==<br /> <br /> The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> : Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == A hypothetical article ==<br /> <br /> The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.<br /> <br /> Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.<br /> <br /> == Birth Certificate Controversy ==<br /> <br /> The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==<br /> Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}<br /> :::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.<br /> :::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM<br /> <br /> <br /> Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==<br /> Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.<br /> <br /> Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.<br /> <br /> Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...<br /> <br /> : Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.<br /> <br /> ::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is going to be the next president==<br /> Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==<br /> Article should be updated accordingly<br /> : President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == What happening with the muslim section? ==<br /> <br /> I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.<br /> <br /> Also some points that really stand out to me, <br /> *''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''<br /> In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me<br /> *'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)<br /> *''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.<br /> *''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.<br /> <br /> I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Copyediting needed ==<br /> <br /> I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:<br /> <br /> "Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."<br /> <br /> is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Muslim? ==<br /> <br /> That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.<br /> Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == A Muslim President-elect! ==<br /> <br /> Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> "Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."<br /> <br /> and: <br /> <br /> <br /> "It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == "70's terrorist" ==<br /> <br /> I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"<br /> <br /> he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist<br /> <br /> we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050<br /> <br /> [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == MInd Control? Really now? ==<br /> <br /> The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Absence of Dancing ==<br /> <br /> Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?<br /> <br /> One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::um, lol?<br /> ::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]<br /> ::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]<br /> <br /> ::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]<br /> <br /> :::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?<br /> <br /> :::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.<br /> <br /> And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::Simple solution to this whole thing. Islam does not forbid dancing. Amazing no? Islam forbids certain kinds of dancing. Such as dancing involving the men and women who are not married, and dancing with the intention to be provocative. Of course there are always members of a group who are more conservative with religious laws (no dancing at all) or more liberal with laws (any dancing is ok) but as written, Dancing is allowed as long as it is well mannered, does not stimulate desires, and does not mix men and women who are not married.<br /> That being said, there are also christian groups that forbid dancing as well. For much the same reasons. So just because Obama doesn't dance enough for your satisfaction does not mean anything regarding religion.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:50, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Anti Americanism ==<br /> <br /> Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"<br /> <br /> I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.<br /> <br /> : I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]<br /> <br /> If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == "Muslim Faith" comment ==<br /> <br /> I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.<br /> <br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30<br /> <br /> [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Socialistic==<br /> It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Wait==<br /> <br /> Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]<br /> <br /> ==Connections with Irish Terrorists==<br /> <br /> I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)<br /> :Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)<br /> <br /> :::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|<sub>Nice old chat</sub>]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)<br /> :::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Inciting hatred ==<br /> <br /> Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?<br /> <br /> : Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi<br /> <br /> ::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==<br /> <br /> Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia. <br /> <br /> The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.<br /> <br /> Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.<br /> <br /> In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Reference 29 ==<br /> <br /> Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==<br /> <br /> I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==<br /> <br /> Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.<br /> <br /> :::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Muslim Votes==<br /> Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might ''think'' that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.<br /> <br /> :::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--[[User:MichaelMo|MichaelMo]] 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I ''feel'' that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--[[User:AshleyB|AshleyB]] 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :::::The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any '''causation'''? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have ''known'' that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.<br /> <br /> No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.<br /> <br /> :In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to ''know'' (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy. <br /> <br /> :Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|Black Americans vote for the Democrat presidential candidate over 90% of the time]], even when that candidate is not Black. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Often correlation is indicative of causation. Those Democrat cantidates were probably secretly black. --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 18:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.<br /> ::The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I have to confess to being very confused by everything that's being said here. None of it seems to quite line up. Wouldn't the Jewish community be LESS likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, particularly one with the alleged terrorist links? Yet 78% of them voted for him - in greater proportion than they have previously voted for a Democrat? That seems to be completely counter to the allegation? It just all seems very odd, and very confusing to a passing reader. [[User:HarryR|HarryR]] 22:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Confusion==<br /> <br /> I'm just a little bit confused about one of the dot points claiming Obama is a Muslim, and was wondering if someone could explain it. It is the one about him leaving his Church without first finding a new one.<br /> <br /> Here in Australia, while many people are members of a Church, a majority of us Christians are not. There is often no official enrolment beyond donations or small groups, and most families simply attend the Church closest to them, some even attending a number of Churches. As such it is quite confusing to state that a person is not a Christian simply because they have not "joined" a Church, as this is not a reflection on whether or not they attend, let alone their individual faith. Perhaps this could be clarified for an international audience.<br /> <br /> Also the line "Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity" is entirely conterproductive to the argument, as the statements made by Obama that are in opposition to Christianity (regarding homosexuality) are also in opposition to Islam. If anything this is proof that Obama is not a Muslim and is in fact an atheist, and should be removed asap! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Also Malcolm X did not become a Muslim after he was a National of Islam leader, it was before. The current wording needs to be fixed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Lenin Poster ==<br /> <br /> The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br /> :Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and beer ==<br /> <br /> There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Hussein reference ==<br /> <br /> It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Debate On Obama's Religion==<br /> <br /> The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Reference ==<br /> <br /> <references/></div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belief_in_evolution&diff=553978 Belief in evolution 2008-11-10T21:10:13Z

<p>ScottA: better source</p> <hr /> <div>'''Belief in evolution''' usually takes any of three forms. If "[[evolution]]" is defined as any hereditary change at all in a group of similar living things, then everyone in the world believes in this; you may as well say "I believe in water." All scientists and nearly all religious people accept the concepts of [[mutation]] and [[inheritance]] (see [[Genetics]]).<br /> <br /> If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% {{fact}}of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago. <br /> <br /> Finally, if "evolution" refers to the [[Theory of Evolution]] associated with [[Charles Darwin]], that the principle of [[natural selection]] can account for the appearance of new forms of life, then only about 15% {{fact}}of Americans believe this. (Around 45% [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm] of Americans believe that new forms of life have indeed appeared as indicated in the [[fossil record]], but they think this was due to God's intervention rather than natural processes alone.)<br /> <br /> So when someone is reported to "believe in evolution", you need to be sure what sort of belief is being discussed.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Belief_in_evolution&diff=553967 Belief in evolution 2008-11-10T20:50:29Z

<p>ScottA: Added 1 citation for fact tag</p> <hr /> <div>'''Belief in evolution''' usually takes any of three forms. If "[[evolution]]" is defined as any hereditary change at all in a group of similar living things, then everyone in the world believes in this; you may as well say "I believe in water." All scientists and nearly all religious people accept the concepts of [[mutation]] and [[inheritance]] (see [[Genetics]]).<br /> <br /> If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% {{fact}}of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago. <br /> <br /> Finally, if "evolution" refers to the [[Theory of Evolution]] associated with [[Charles Darwin]], that the principle of [[natural selection]] can account for the appearance of new forms of life, then only about 15% {{fact}}of Americans believe this. (Around 45% [http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx] of Americans believe that new forms of life have indeed appeared as indicated in the [[fossil record]], but they think this was due to God's intervention rather than natural processes alone.)<br /> <br /> So when someone is reported to "believe in evolution", you need to be sure what sort of belief is being discussed.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=550469 Sarah Palin 2008-11-06T04:57:28Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 550468 by PTerm (Talk)...</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|right|thumb|Governor Sarah Palin]] '''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref><br /> <br /> She brings a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007 she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref><br /> <br /> Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]<ref>http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html</ref> and worked in media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.<br /> <br /> ==Personal Background==<br /> [[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. <br><br /> ''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]<br /> Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, basketball team captain and state champs <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.<br /> <br /> She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race. <br /> <br /> Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. <br /> <br /> Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:<br /> : "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" <ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:<br /> :"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People Magazine]]</ref><br /> <br /> :"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref><br /> <br /> Palin's older son Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."<ref name="people">[[People Magazine]]</ref><br /> <br /> In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref>.<br /> <br /> [[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]<br /> <br /> ==Political Career==<br /> Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.<br /> <br /> In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. <br /> <br /> To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref><br /> <br /> She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.<br /> <br /> She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.<br /> <br /> Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref><br /> <br /> In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> ''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' <ref> Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, "Issues" Nov 7, 2006 </ref><br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> ==Record as Governor==<br /> ===Energy and Oil===<br /> <br /> A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref><br /> <br /> In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref> Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation. <br /> ===State Economy===<br /> [[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in Ketchikan as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release. <br /> <br /> She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref><br /> <br /> Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.<br /> <br /> Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.<br /> <br /> While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]</ref><br /> <br /> === Foreign Policy ===<br /> [[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]] <br /> Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref><br /> <br /> During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]</ref> What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref><br /> <br /> ===Legislature Investigation===<br /> In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. <ref name="pc" /><br /> <br /> Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. <ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref><br /> <br /> :The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. <ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref><br /><br /><br /> <br /> The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref><br /> <br /> In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. <ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref><br /><br />A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref><br /> <br /> In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref><br /> <br /> ==Vice Presidential Candidate==<br /> [[Image:Repub. conv..jpg|thumb|left|Sarah Palin addresses the audience of the 2008 National Republican Convention.]]<br /> <br /> On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.<br /> <br /> Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better. <br /> ===Democratic responses===<br /> In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of the people believe that the press is trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could backfire into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.<br /> <br /> Many Democrats have advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081004/OPINION02/810040311/1139/news01]</ref><ref>[http://m.nypost.com/ms/p/nyp/nyp/view.m?id=127899&storyid=131936]</ref><br /> <br /> During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref><br /> <br /> ===Impact on Ticket===<br /> <br /> In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." <ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.<br /> <br /> ==Beliefs==<br /> Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.<br /> <br /> Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." <br /> <br /> Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.<br /> <br /> Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|'Theory' of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.<br /> <br /> In a typical example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".<br /> <br /> ==Church Life==<br /> Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. <ref>{{cite web<br /> |accessdate=2008-08-30<br /> |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story<br /> |title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick<br /> |author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,<br /> |work=Los Angeles Times<br /> |date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news<br /> | last = Gorsk| first = Eric<br /> | url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00<br /> | title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket<br /> | publisher =Associated Press<br /> | date = 2008-08-30<br /> | accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref> <br /> <br /> Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref><br /> <br /> ==Popularity==<br /> <br /> Whether or not people say that like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref><br /> Many speculate that her popularity will lead her to run for President in the year 2012 to unseat liberal Barack Obama.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]<br /> *[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]<br /> *[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]<br /> *[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]<br /> *[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]<br /> *[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Alaska Governors]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Governors]]<br /> [[Category:United States Mayors]]<br /> [[Category:Women]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=550467 Sarah Palin 2008-11-06T04:54:27Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 550466 by PTerm (Talk) poor choice of language</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|right|thumb|Governor Sarah Palin]] '''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref><br /> <br /> She brings a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007 she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref><br /> <br /> Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]<ref>http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html</ref> and worked in media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.<br /> <br /> ==Personal Background==<br /> [[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. <br><br /> ''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]<br /> Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, basketball team captain and state champs <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.<br /> <br /> She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race. <br /> <br /> Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. <br /> <br /> Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:<br /> : "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" <ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:<br /> :"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People Magazine]]</ref><br /> <br /> :"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref><br /> <br /> Palin's older son Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."<ref name="people">[[People Magazine]]</ref><br /> <br /> In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref>.<br /> <br /> [[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]<br /> <br /> ==Political Career==<br /> Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.<br /> <br /> In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. <br /> <br /> To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref><br /> <br /> She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.<br /> <br /> She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.<br /> <br /> Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref><br /> <br /> In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> ''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' <ref> Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, "Issues" Nov 7, 2006 </ref><br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> ==Record as Governor==<br /> ===Energy and Oil===<br /> <br /> A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref><br /> <br /> In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref> Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation. <br /> ===State Economy===<br /> [[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in Ketchikan as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release. <br /> <br /> She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref><br /> <br /> Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.<br /> <br /> Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.<br /> <br /> While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]</ref><br /> <br /> === Foreign Policy ===<br /> [[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]] <br /> Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref><br /> <br /> During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]</ref> What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref><br /> <br /> ===Legislature Investigation===<br /> In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. <ref name="pc" /><br /> <br /> Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. <ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref><br /> <br /> :The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.<br /> <br /> The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. <ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref><br /><br /><br /> <br /> The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref><br /> <br /> In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. <ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref><br /><br />A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref><br /> <br /> In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref><br /> <br /> ==Vice Presidential Candidate==<br /> [[Image:Repub. conv..jpg|thumb|left|Sarah Palin addresses the audience of the 2008 National Republican Convention.]]<br /> <br /> On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.<br /> <br /> Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better. <br /> ===Democratic responses===<br /> In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of the people believe that the press is trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could backfire into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.<br /> <br /> Many Democrats have advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081004/OPINION02/810040311/1139/news01]</ref><ref>[http://m.nypost.com/ms/p/nyp/nyp/view.m?id=127899&storyid=131936]</ref><br /> <br /> During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref><br /> <br /> ===Impact on Ticket===<br /> <br /> In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." <ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.<br /> <br /> ==Beliefs==<br /> Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.<br /> <br /> Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." <br /> <br /> Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.<br /> <br /> Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|'Theory' of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.<br /> <br /> In a typical example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".<br /> <br /> ==Church Life==<br /> Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. <ref>{{cite web<br /> |accessdate=2008-08-30<br /> |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story<br /> |title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick<br /> |author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,<br /> |work=Los Angeles Times<br /> |date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news<br /> | last = Gorsk| first = Eric<br /> | url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00<br /> | title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket<br /> | publisher =Associated Press<br /> | date = 2008-08-30<br /> | accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref> <br /> <br /> Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref><br /> <br /> ==Popularity==<br /> <br /> Whether or not people say that like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref><br /> Many speculate that her popularity will lead her to run for President in the year 2012 to unseat liberal Barack Obama.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]<br /> *[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]<br /> *[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]<br /> *[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]<br /> *[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]<br /> *[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Alaska Governors]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Governors]]<br /> [[Category:United States Mayors]]<br /> [[Category:Women]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=549937 Christianity 2008-11-05T17:22:50Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 549932 by JohnKing52 (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{Christianity}}<br /> '''Christianity''' is the world's largest religion, having 2.1 billion followers. It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] as the Son of [[God]]. Christianity takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Followers (those that have been saved though baptism) are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> <br /> == Main Christian groups ==<br /> <br /> The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:<br /> <br /> * the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who Catholic believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers. <br /> <br /> * the [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054. <br /> [[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]<br /> * [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.<br /> {{Clear}}<br /> <br /> == Christian beliefs ==<br /> Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:<br /> <br /> <blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote><br /> <br /> Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.<br /> <br /> Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.<br /> <br /> Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].<br /> <br /> ===God===<br /> God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians are not polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). Though to non-Christians and even many Christians, it might seem like an inconsequential dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to all of Christian theology and life. This is especially true in the relationship between God and human beings. The major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc. The picture that the Biblical writers draw with these words is of a lover (God) who is entirely self-sufficient, needing nothing, and a beloved (human beings) in desperate need of salvation but unable to obtain it for himself. But God the lover is willing to suffer, knows He is going to suffer, even endure death to save those who believe in him. This love of God for human beings is an extension of the love the Three Persons in the Trinity have for each other. Each loves the others infinitely. Their love for each other and for their creation is such that the [[Apostle John]] equates God and love, in an almost mathematical way saying, "God is love."<br /> <br /> Additionally, the God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).<br /> <br /> ===Jesus===<br /> [[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]<br /> During the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John said in his Gospel.<br /> {{Clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Jesus' Self Consciousness===<br /> <br /> Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?". <br /> <br /> They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself. <br /> [[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]<br /> Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastaions of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".<br /> <br /> A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.<br /> <br /> This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.<br /> <br /> "No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref><br /> <br /> "Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref><br /> <br /> ===Morality===<br /> The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:<br /> <br /> "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)<br /> <br /> Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11). <br /> <br /> Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote><br /> <br /> Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)<br /> <br /> ===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===<br /> [[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]<br /> All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.<br /> <br /> # Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."<br /> # Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".<br /> # It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God&mdash;the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away&mdash;the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications. <br /> <br /> Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins&mdash;certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"? <br /> <br /> The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.<br /> <br /> ===Salvation===<br /> The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).<br /> <br /> However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)<br /> <br /> Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)<br /> <br /> Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; [[NASB]]). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.<br /> <br /> == Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==<br /> [[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]<br /> The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref> <br /> <br /> In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:<br /> The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref><br /> Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref><br /> <br /> ===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===<br /> <br /> The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.<br /> <br /> 1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.<br /> <br /> 2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth. <br /> <br /> 3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for. <br /> <br /> 4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real. <br /> <br /> 5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.<br /> <br /> 6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.<br /> <br /> == Evangelism ==<br /> In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.<br /> :'''Great Commission'''<br /> :''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]<br /> <br /> [[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]<br /> <br><br /> <br /> ==History of the name "Christian"==<br /> Some early Christian churches called themselves "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in [[Antioch]] in the first century A. D. and its use spread, probably closer to mid-century since it is recorded in the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> [[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]<br /> '''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''<br /> *[[Roman Catholic Church]]<br /> *[[Orthodox Church]]<br /> *[[Protestantism|Protestant]]<br /> **[[Amish]]<br /> **[[Baptist]]<br /> **[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''<br /> **[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)<br /> **[[Evangelical Christianity]]<br /> **[[Fundamentalism]]<br /> **[[Liberal Christianity]]<br /> **[[Lutheran]]<br /> **[[Mennonite]]<br /> **[[Methodist]]<br /> **[[Pentecostal]]<br /> **[[Plymouth Brethren]]<br /> **[[Presbyterian]]<br /> **[[Seventh-day Adventist]]<br /> <br /> '''Disputed'''<br /> *[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]<br /> *[[Christian Science]]<br /> <br /> '''Other articles'''<br /> *[[Cathedral]]<br /> *[[Catholicism]]<br /> *[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)<br /> *[[Christianity and Science]]<br /> *[[Church]]<br /> *[[Conservative Christianity]]<br /> *[[Eucharist]]<br /> *[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Judaism]]<br /> *[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]<br /> *[[Passover Seder]]<br /> *[[Persecution of Christians]]<br /> *[[Red-letter Christian]]<br /> *[[Sign of the Cross]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Christianity| ]]<br /> [[Category:Worldviews]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=549934 Republican Party 2008-11-05T17:22:14Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 549929 by JohnKing52 (Talk) No</p> <hr /> <div>{{AmericanPoliticalParty<br /> | party_name = Republican Party<br /> | party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)<br /> | party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]<br /> | website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]<br /> | headquarters = 310 K Street SE<br> [[Washington, D.C.]]<br>20003 <br /> | chairman = [[Mike Duncan]] <br /> | president = [[George W. Bush]] <br /> | houseleader = [[John Boehner]] <br /> | senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]] <br /> | foundation = 1854<br /> | ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]]<br>[[Conservative|Conservatism]]<br>[[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]]<br>[[Neoconservatism]]<br /> | fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]<br /> | socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]<br /> | international = [[International Democrat Union]] <br /> | colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)<br /> | footnotes =<br /> }}<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a Republican, but the party's head is its presidential candidate [[John McCain]]. The Republican party is the center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen and evangelical Protestants, while the Democrats appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups.<br /> <br /> The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP. <br /> <br /> 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. <br /> <br /> == Symbol ==<br /> [[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]<br /> [[Image:gop.jpg|right|150px|Official logo of the GOP.]]<br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the [[elephant]]. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as [[Indiana]] and [[Ohio]] was the [[eagle]], as opposed to the Democratic [[cock]]. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref><br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 10 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, and 1996). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ===Third Party System: 1854-1894===<br /> The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.<br /> <br /> ====Issues: Slavery====<br /> Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref><br /> <br /> Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref> <br /> <br /> <br /> The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes. <br /> <br /> ====Modernization====<br /> Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.<br /> ====Ethnocultural voting====<br /> Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref><br /> <br /> ====Politics 1854-1860====<br /> [[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.<br /> {{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}<br /> {{See also|Third Party System}}<br /> <br /> ====Civil War: 1861-1865====<br /> Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====<br /> In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.<br /> <br /> Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. <br /> <br /> [[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]<br /> <br /> Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964. <br /> <br /> In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134] <br /> <br /> Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)<br /> <br /> ====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====<br /> The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888. <br /> <br /> As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.<br /> ====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====<br /> <br /> From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them. <br /> <br /> Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).<br /> Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.<br /> <br /> Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref See Kleppner (1979)</ref><br /> ===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===<br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920. <br /> <br /> ====McKinley and realignment====<br /> McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy. <br /> <br /> McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Roosevelt and Progressivism====<br /> [[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]]. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908. <br /> <br /> <br /> ====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====<br /> <br /> The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty. <br /> <br /> <br /> The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened. <br /> <br /> <br /> Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.<br /> <br /> ====State and local politics====<br /> The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes. <br /> <br /> ====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====<br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds. <br /> <br /> The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans. <br /> <br /> The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> ==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==<br /> Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) &ndash; combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide. <br /> <br /> Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan). <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system. <br /> <br /> The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy. <br /> <br /> Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Strength of Parties 1977==== <br /> How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:<br /> <br /> {| class=wikitable<br /> ! Party <br /> ! Republican<br /> ! Democratic<br /> ! Independent<br /> |-<br /> ! Party ID (Gallup)<br /> | 22%<br /> | 47%<br /> | 31%<br /> |- <br /> ! Congressmen<br /> | 181<br /> | 354<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! House<br /> | 143<br /> | 292<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! Senate<br /> | 38<br /> | 62<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! % House popular vote nationally<br /> | 42%<br /> | 56%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 41%<br /> | 57%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 37%<br /> | 62%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 47%<br /> | 52%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 43%<br /> | 55%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> ! Governors<br /> | 12<br /> | 37<br /> | 1<br /> |- <br /> ! rowspan=2 | State Legislators<br /> | 2,370<br /> | 5,128<br /> | 55<br /> |- <br /> | 31%<br /> | 68%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> ! State legislature control<br /> | 18<br /> | 80<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 5<br /> | 13<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 0<br /> | 32<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 5<br /> | 17<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 8<br /> | 18<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> ! States' one party control<br>of legislature and governorship<br /> | 1<br /> | 29<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> |}<br /> <nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.<br /> <br /> Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6<br /> <br /> ====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====<br /> The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]]. <br /> Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.<br /> <br /> ====Suburbia====<br /> The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp. <br /> DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref><br /> <br /> An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Rise of the right====<br /> [[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South. <br /> <br /> As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970. <br /> <br /> With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====<br /> In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.<br /> <br /> However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. <br /> <br /> The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.<br /> <br /> The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.<br /> <br /> In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref><br /> <br /> <br /> ===Reagan Era===<br /> <br /> In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986. <br /> <br /> <br /> The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders. <br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> [[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Famous Republicans==<br /> *[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States<br /> *[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee<br /> *[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House<br /> *[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American<br /> *[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President<br /> *[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948<br /> *[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States<br /> *[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign<br /> *[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts<br /> *[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974) Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959 <br /> *[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924) Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman<br /> *[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]<br /> *[[Richard Nixon]], (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States<br /> *[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]<br /> *[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals<br /> *[[Theodore Roosevelt]] President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)<br /> *[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Charles Sumner]], (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover <br /> *[[Robert Alphonso Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful<br /> *[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])<br /> *[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s<br /> *[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[Ronald Reagan]] President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)<br /> *[[George H.W. Bush]] President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)<br /> *[[George W. Bush]] President of the United States, (2001 - present)<br /> *[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008<br /> *[[Sarah Palin]] Vice-presidential nominee, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ===Historical===<br /> *''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.<br /> * Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated<br /> * Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp. <br /> * ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945<br /> * Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]<br /> *Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state<br /> * Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995), <br /> *Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.<br /> * Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist<br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition] <br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)<br /> *Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model<br /> *Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]<br /> *Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.<br /> *Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era<br /> *Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.<br /> *Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972) <br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964<br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972 <br /> * Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]<br /> *Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative<br /> *Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> **includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer<br /> *Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)<br /> * Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.<br /> *Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]<br /> * Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]<br /> * Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography <br /> ===Since 1980===<br /> *Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.<br /> * Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)<br /> * Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp. <br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br /> * Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian <br /> * Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative<br /> *Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian<br /> * Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993<br /> * Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)<br /> * Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp. <br /> * Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br /> * Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.<br /> * Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br /> * Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian<br /> * Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp. <br /> * Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars <br /> *Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).<br /> * Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).<br /> * Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars<br /> * Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp. <br /> * Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> *Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> <br /> ====Notes====<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]<br /> *[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]<br /> *[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Parties]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Organizations]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=549926 Republican Party 2008-11-05T17:16:13Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 549923 by JohnKing52 (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{AmericanPoliticalParty<br /> | party_name = Republican Party<br /> | party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)<br /> | party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]<br /> | website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]<br /> | headquarters = 310 K Street SE<br> [[Washington, D.C.]]<br>20003 <br /> | chairman = [[Mike Duncan]] <br /> | president = [[George W. Bush]] <br /> | houseleader = [[John Boehner]] <br /> | senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]] <br /> | foundation = 1854<br /> | ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]]<br>[[Conservative|Conservatism]]<br>[[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]]<br>[[Neoconservatism]]<br /> | fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]<br /> | socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]<br /> | international = [[International Democrat Union]] <br /> | colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)<br /> | footnotes =<br /> }}<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a Republican, but the party's head is its presidential candidate [[John McCain]]. The Republican party is the center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen and evangelical Protestants, while the Democrats appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups.<br /> <br /> The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP. <br /> <br /> 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. <br /> <br /> == Symbol ==<br /> [[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]<br /> [[Image:gop.jpg|right|150px|Official logo of the GOP.]]<br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the [[elephant]]. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as [[Indiana]] and [[Ohio]] was the [[eagle]], as opposed to the Democratic [[cock]]. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref><br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 10 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, and 1996). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ===Third Party System: 1854-1894===<br /> The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.<br /> <br /> ====Issues: Slavery====<br /> Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref><br /> <br /> Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref> <br /> <br /> <br /> The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes. <br /> <br /> ====Modernization====<br /> Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.<br /> ====Ethnocultural voting====<br /> Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref><br /> <br /> ====Politics 1854-1860====<br /> [[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.<br /> {{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}<br /> {{See also|Third Party System}}<br /> <br /> ====Civil War: 1861-1865====<br /> Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====<br /> In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.<br /> <br /> Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. <br /> <br /> [[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]<br /> <br /> Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964. <br /> <br /> In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134] <br /> <br /> Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)<br /> <br /> ====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====<br /> The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888. <br /> <br /> As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.<br /> ====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====<br /> <br /> From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them. <br /> <br /> Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).<br /> Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.<br /> <br /> Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref See Kleppner (1979)</ref><br /> ===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===<br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920. <br /> <br /> ====McKinley and realignment====<br /> McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy. <br /> <br /> McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Roosevelt and Progressivism====<br /> [[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]]. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908. <br /> <br /> <br /> ====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====<br /> <br /> The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty. <br /> <br /> <br /> The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened. <br /> <br /> <br /> Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.<br /> <br /> ====State and local politics====<br /> The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes. <br /> <br /> ====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====<br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds. <br /> <br /> The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans. <br /> <br /> The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> ==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==<br /> Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) &ndash; combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide. <br /> <br /> Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan). <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system. <br /> <br /> The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy. <br /> <br /> Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Strength of Parties 1977==== <br /> How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:<br /> <br /> {| class=wikitable<br /> ! Party <br /> ! Republican<br /> ! Democratic<br /> ! Independent<br /> |-<br /> ! Party ID (Gallup)<br /> | 22%<br /> | 47%<br /> | 31%<br /> |- <br /> ! Congressmen<br /> | 181<br /> | 354<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! House<br /> | 143<br /> | 292<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! Senate<br /> | 38<br /> | 62<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! % House popular vote nationally<br /> | 42%<br /> | 56%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 41%<br /> | 57%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 37%<br /> | 62%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 47%<br /> | 52%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 43%<br /> | 55%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> ! Governors<br /> | 12<br /> | 37<br /> | 1<br /> |- <br /> ! rowspan=2 | State Legislators<br /> | 2,370<br /> | 5,128<br /> | 55<br /> |- <br /> | 31%<br /> | 68%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> ! State legislature control<br /> | 18<br /> | 80<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 5<br /> | 13<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 0<br /> | 32<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 5<br /> | 17<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 8<br /> | 18<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> ! States' one party control<br>of legislature and governorship<br /> | 1<br /> | 29<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> |}<br /> <nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.<br /> <br /> Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6<br /> <br /> ====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====<br /> The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]]. <br /> Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.<br /> <br /> ====Suburbia====<br /> The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp. <br /> DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref><br /> <br /> An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Rise of the right====<br /> [[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South. <br /> <br /> As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970. <br /> <br /> With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====<br /> In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.<br /> <br /> However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. <br /> <br /> The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.<br /> <br /> The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.<br /> <br /> In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref><br /> <br /> <br /> ===Reagan Era===<br /> <br /> In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986. <br /> <br /> <br /> The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders. <br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> [[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Famous Republicans==<br /> *[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States<br /> *[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee<br /> *[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House<br /> *[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American<br /> *[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President<br /> *[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948<br /> *[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States<br /> *[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign<br /> *[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts<br /> *[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974) Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959 <br /> *[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924) Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman<br /> *[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]<br /> *[[Richard Nixon]], (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States<br /> *[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]<br /> *[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals<br /> *[[Theodore Roosevelt]] President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)<br /> *[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Charles Sumner]], (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover <br /> *[[Robert Alphonso Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful<br /> *[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])<br /> *[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s<br /> *[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[Ronald Reagan]] President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)<br /> *[[George H.W. Bush]] President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)<br /> *[[George W. Bush]] President of the United States, (2001 - present)<br /> *[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008<br /> *[[Sarah Palin]] Vice-presidential nominee, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ===Historical===<br /> *''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.<br /> * Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated<br /> * Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp. <br /> * ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945<br /> * Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]<br /> *Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state<br /> * Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995), <br /> *Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.<br /> * Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist<br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition] <br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)<br /> *Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model<br /> *Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]<br /> *Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.<br /> *Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era<br /> *Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.<br /> *Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972) <br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964<br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972 <br /> * Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]<br /> *Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative<br /> *Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> **includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer<br /> *Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)<br /> * Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.<br /> *Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]<br /> * Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]<br /> * Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography <br /> ===Since 1980===<br /> *Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.<br /> * Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)<br /> * Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp. <br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br /> * Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian <br /> * Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative<br /> *Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian<br /> * Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993<br /> * Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)<br /> * Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp. <br /> * Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br /> * Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.<br /> * Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br /> * Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian<br /> * Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp. <br /> * Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars <br /> *Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).<br /> * Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).<br /> * Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars<br /> * Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp. <br /> * Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> *Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> <br /> ====Notes====<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]<br /> *[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]<br /> *[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Parties]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Organizations]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=549912 Republican Party 2008-11-05T16:53:46Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 549906 by City (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{AmericanPoliticalParty<br /> | party_name = Republican Party<br /> | party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)<br /> | party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]<br /> | website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]<br /> | headquarters = 310 K Street SE<br> [[Washington, D.C.]]<br>20003 <br /> | chairman = [[Mike Duncan]] <br /> | president = [[George W. Bush]] <br /> | houseleader = [[John Boehner]] <br /> | senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]] <br /> | foundation = 1854<br /> | ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]]<br>[[Conservative|Conservatism]]<br>[[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]]<br>[[Neoconservatism]]<br /> | fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]<br /> | socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]<br /> | international = [[International Democrat Union]] <br /> | colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)<br /> | footnotes =<br /> }}<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a Republican, but the party's head is its presidential candidate [[John McCain]]. The Republican party is the center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen and evangelical Protestants, while the Democrats appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups.<br /> <br /> The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP. <br /> <br /> 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. <br /> <br /> == Symbol ==<br /> [[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]<br /> [[Image:gop.jpg|right|150px|Official logo of the GOP.]]<br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the [[elephant]]. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as [[Indiana]] and [[Ohio]] was the [[eagle]], as opposed to the Democratic [[cock]]. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref><br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 10 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, and 1996). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ===Third Party System: 1854-1894===<br /> The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.<br /> <br /> ====Issues: Slavery====<br /> Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref><br /> <br /> Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref> <br /> <br /> <br /> The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes. <br /> <br /> ====Modernization====<br /> Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.<br /> ====Ethnocultural voting====<br /> Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref><br /> <br /> ====Politics 1854-1860====<br /> [[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.<br /> {{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}<br /> {{See also|Third Party System}}<br /> <br /> ====Civil War: 1861-1865====<br /> Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====<br /> In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.<br /> <br /> Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. <br /> <br /> [[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]<br /> <br /> Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964. <br /> <br /> In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134] <br /> <br /> Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)<br /> <br /> ====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====<br /> The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888. <br /> <br /> As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.<br /> ====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====<br /> <br /> From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them. <br /> <br /> Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).<br /> Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.<br /> <br /> Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref See Kleppner (1979)</ref><br /> ===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===<br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920. <br /> <br /> ====McKinley and realignment====<br /> McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy. <br /> <br /> McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Roosevelt and Progressivism====<br /> [[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]]. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals. <br /> <br /> Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908. <br /> <br /> <br /> ====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====<br /> <br /> The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty. <br /> <br /> <br /> The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened. <br /> <br /> <br /> Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.<br /> <br /> ====State and local politics====<br /> The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes. <br /> <br /> ====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====<br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds. <br /> <br /> The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans. <br /> <br /> The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> ==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==<br /> Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) &ndash; combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide. <br /> <br /> Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan). <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system. <br /> <br /> The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy. <br /> <br /> Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Strength of Parties 1977==== <br /> How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:<br /> <br /> {| class=wikitable<br /> ! Party <br /> ! Republican<br /> ! Democratic<br /> ! Independent<br /> |-<br /> ! Party ID (Gallup)<br /> | 22%<br /> | 47%<br /> | 31%<br /> |- <br /> ! Congressmen<br /> | 181<br /> | 354<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! House<br /> | 143<br /> | 292<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! Senate<br /> | 38<br /> | 62<br /> | <br /> |- <br /> ! % House popular vote nationally<br /> | 42%<br /> | 56%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 41%<br /> | 57%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 37%<br /> | 62%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 47%<br /> | 52%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 43%<br /> | 55%<br /> | 2%<br /> |- <br /> ! Governors<br /> | 12<br /> | 37<br /> | 1<br /> |- <br /> ! rowspan=2 | State Legislators<br /> | 2,370<br /> | 5,128<br /> | 55<br /> |- <br /> | 31%<br /> | 68%<br /> | 1%<br /> |- <br /> ! State legislature control<br /> | 18<br /> | 80<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the East<br /> | 5<br /> | 13<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the South<br /> | 0<br /> | 32<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the Midwest<br /> | 5<br /> | 17<br /> | 1 * <br /> |- <br /> | align=right | in the West<br /> | 8<br /> | 18<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> ! States' one party control<br>of legislature and governorship<br /> | 1<br /> | 29<br /> | 0<br /> |- <br /> |}<br /> <nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.<br /> <br /> Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6<br /> <br /> ====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====<br /> The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]]. <br /> Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.<br /> <br /> ====Suburbia====<br /> The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp. <br /> DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref><br /> <br /> An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Rise of the right====<br /> [[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South. <br /> <br /> As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970. <br /> <br /> With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref><br /> <br /> ====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====<br /> In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.<br /> <br /> However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. <br /> <br /> The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.<br /> <br /> The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.<br /> <br /> In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref><br /> <br /> <br /> ===Reagan Era===<br /> <br /> In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986. <br /> <br /> <br /> The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders. <br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> [[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Famous Republicans==<br /> *[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States<br /> *[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee<br /> *[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House<br /> *[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American<br /> *[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President<br /> *[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948<br /> *[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States<br /> *[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign<br /> *[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts<br /> *[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974) Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959 <br /> *[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924) Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman<br /> *[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]<br /> *[[Richard Nixon]], (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States<br /> *[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]<br /> *[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals<br /> *[[Theodore Roosevelt]] President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)<br /> *[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Charles Sumner]], (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction<br /> *[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover <br /> *[[Robert Alphonso Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful<br /> *[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])<br /> *[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s<br /> *[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]<br /> *[[Ronald Reagan]] President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)<br /> *[[George H.W. Bush]] President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)<br /> *[[George W. Bush]] President of the United States, (2001 - present)<br /> *[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008<br /> *[[Sarah Palin]] Vice-presidential nominee, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ===Historical===<br /> *''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.<br /> * Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated<br /> * Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp. <br /> * ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945<br /> * Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]<br /> *Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state<br /> * Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995), <br /> *Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.<br /> * Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist<br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition] <br /> *Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)<br /> *Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model<br /> *Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]<br /> *Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.<br /> *Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era<br /> *Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.<br /> *Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972) <br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964<br /> *Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972 <br /> * Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]<br /> *Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative<br /> *Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> **includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer<br /> *Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)<br /> * Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.<br /> *Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]<br /> * Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]<br /> * Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography <br /> ===Since 1980===<br /> *Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.<br /> * Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)<br /> * Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp. <br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br /> * Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian <br /> * Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative<br /> *Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian<br /> * Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993<br /> * Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)<br /> * Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp. <br /> * Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br /> * Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.<br /> * Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br /> * Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian<br /> * Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp. <br /> * Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars <br /> *Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).<br /> * Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).<br /> * Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars<br /> * Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp. <br /> * Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> *Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> <br /> ====Notes====<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]<br /> *[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]<br /> *[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Parties]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Organizations]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democratic_Party&diff=549910 Democratic Party 2008-11-05T16:52:10Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 549905 by IhateObama (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>{{AmericanPoliticalParty<br /> | party_name = Democratic Party<br /> | party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)<br /> | party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]<br /> | website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]<br /> | headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE<br> [[Washington, D.C.]]<br>20003 <br /> | chairman = [[Howard Dean]] <br /> | houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]] <br /> | senateleader = [[Harry Reid]] <br /> | foundation = 1792 or 1820's<br /> | ideology = [[Liberal|Liberalism]]<br>[[Progressive|Progressivism]]<br>[[Neoconservatism]]<br /> | fiscalpolicy = [[Populism]]<br /> | socialpolicy = [[Liberal|Liberalism]]<br /> | colors = Blue (unofficial)<br /> | footnotes =<br /> }}<br /> <br /> The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. Its leadership is [[liberal]], in contrast with [[conservative]] voters who tend to support the rival [[Republican Party]].<ref>See [[political spectrum theory]]</ref> Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. Republicans (and some Democrats) sometimes call it the "Democrat Party," which the liberals dislike intensely. <br /> <br /> In 2007-08 the Democrats at the national level raised far more campaign funds than the Republicans. <br /> <br /> The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. The AP/Ipsos Poll reports that the Democratic-majority U.S. Congress currently has a 26% approval rating.<ref>[http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080110-1topline.pdf&id=3782 AP/Ipsos Poll], January 7-9, 2008.</ref><br /> <br /> The nominee for the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 presidential election]] is Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]], who defeated [[Hillary Clinton|Senator Hillary Clinton]] despite her 18 million votes in the primaries. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], elected in 1992 and 1996. <br /> ===Florida 2007-8===<br /> In 2007, the Democratic leadership in Florida broke the party rules by moving their primaries up. This disqualified their delegates from the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Democratic_Strategy|2008 Presidential Primary Election]] 2008 Democratic National Convention.<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersberg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> The ''St. Petersberg Times'' quotes a letter from Florida Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and others Democratic members of the Florida Congressional delegation sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]] protesting a move by the Committee to violate individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]],<br /> {{Cquote|It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote," the letter said. "We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right.}}<br /> <br /> The Democrats ended up seating all of Florida's delegates but they will only have half of a vote each at the convention. A full Michigan delegation with half-votes was seated as well, but Obama was assigned all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates, and four Hillary Clinton delegates were transferred to Barack Obama, allegedly to compensate for the Barack Obama supporters who didn't vote because he removed his name from the Michigan ballot.<br /> <br /> No states compensated their delegate counts to reflect the will of seventeen year-olds who would have been eighteen by election night had those states not moved up their primaries and caucuses, though some states permit seventeen year-olds who will be eighteen on election night to vote in that state's primary election or caucus.<br /> <br /> ==Policies and criticism==<br /> <br /> In June 2005, at the U.S. Capitol Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry into President's Bush's foreign policy. Concurrently, a rally was being held at the Democratic National Party headquarters where some activists handed out [[anti-Semitic]] materials, claiming that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref><br /> <br /> The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref><br /> <br /> ===Economic policy===<br /> In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.<br /> <br /> The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref><br /> <br /> The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.<br /> <br /> Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.<br /> <br /> ===Foreign and military policy===<br /> According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats &ndash; nearly 10 million voters &ndash; think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.<br /> <br /> ===Education=== <br /> An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs: <br /> :"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref> <br /> <br /> ===Environment vs Labor===<br /> Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.<br /> <br /> ===Healthcare===<br /> The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace and social engineering means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact|date=January 2008}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States.{{fact|date=January 2008}} However, many first world nations such as France and Britain do have socialized healthcare systems, and are ranked 1 and 18 by the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html</ref>, respectively, compared to the United States' rank of 37. Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal healthcare]] to be a priority because of the appeal to voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].<br /> <br /> ===Gay Rights===<br /> Democratic lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s, [[gay marriage]] and [[gay adoption]] of children over defense of the [[traditional family]]. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend [[hate crime]] laws, which some experts maintain would make criticism of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a [[hate crime]] under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to disseminate favorable opinions regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|gay rights]] when this issue is raised. The Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref><br /> <br /> ===Other Policies===<br /> Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.<br /> <br /> ==Religion==<br /> In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.<br /> <br /> Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Massachusetts Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].<br /> <br /> With regard to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.<br /> <br /> Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.<br /> ==History==<br /> ===Origins in the 1820s===<br /> Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party. Jefferson did found a party in the 1790s, which he called the "Republican Party." Historians and political scientists call it the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]. That party became defunct in the 1820s. Some of its leaders like [[Henry Clay]] created the [[Whig Party]]. Other leaders, especially [[Andrew Jackson]] and [[Martin Van Buren]] created the modern Democratic party.<br /> <br /> The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.<br /> <br /> The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s. <br /> <br /> == Jacksonian Democracy: 1828-1854 ==<br /> [[image:donk1837.JPG|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]<br /> After 1830, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]]. The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.<br /> <br /> In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.<br /> <br /> The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished. <br /> <br /> The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]]. <br /> <br /> [[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].<br /> <br /> ==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==<br /> During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.<br /> <br /> [[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]<br /> In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana: <br /> <blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote><br /> <br /> The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak. <br /> <br /> Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.<br /> <br /> [[image:~machine.JPG|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]<br /> <br /> Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.<br /> ===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===<br /> Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.<br /> <br /> Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref><br /> <br /> ==The Bryan Movement==<br /> [[Image:~hanna2.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1896 Davenport cartoon depicts Republican Mark Hanna as a slave driver, from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']] <br /> [[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Cleveland supporters formed the [[Gold Democrats]], which attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.<br /> <br /> Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train—he was the first candidate ever to go on the road—he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.<br /> <br /> ==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==<br /> The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts. <br /> <br /> [[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]<br /> <br /> Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities. <br /> <br /> Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee. <br /> <br /> At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.<br /> <br /> == Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==<br /> [[Image:FDR_in_1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]<br /> The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.<br /> <br /> After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref><br /> <br /> Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations. <br /> <br /> Roosevely successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition"]], a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.<br /> <br /> After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing ony Maine and vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election. <br /> <br /> Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civl rights was not on the party agenda at this time.<br /> <br /> ==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==<br /> Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref><br /> <br /> On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court. <br /> In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides. <br /> <br /> [[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]<br /> <br /> In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.<br /> <br /> The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation. <br /> <br /> Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.<br /> <br /> ==Civil Rights Movement==<br /> [[Image:Lbj-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]<br /> <br /> The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.<br /> <br /> The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.<br /> <br /> ==1972 to 1999==<br /> [[Image:Jimmy Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]<br /> In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate scandal]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.<br /> <br /> In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia. <br /> <br /> Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.<br /> <br /> Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.<br /> <br /> ===1980s: Battling Reaganism===<br /> Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996. <br /> <br /> The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].<br /> <br /> In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.<br /> <br /> ===The South Becomes Republican===<br /> In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."<br /> <br /> However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs. <br /> <br /> Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears. <br /> <br /> Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref><br /> <br /> ===1990s===<br /> <br /> In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.<br /> <br /> When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.<br /> <br /> ==21st century==<br /> ===Election of 2000===<br /> During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref><br /> <br /> Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.<br /> <br /> Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and vote with the Democratic Caucus, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.<br /> <br /> ===2001-2003===<br /> In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative Barbara Lee of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.<br /> <br /> ===Election of 2004===<br /> The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moves to populist antibusiness positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs. <br /> <br /> [[Image:John Kerry headshot with US flag.jpg|180px|left|thumb|Senator [[John Kerry]] of Massachusetts was the 2004 nominee.]]<br /> <br /> In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives. Also, for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia—which had long been a Democratic stronghold.<br /> <br /> There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref> Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek, ''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future'' (2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war.<ref name=future /> Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.<br /> <br /> After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters. <br /> <br /> ===2005 - 2007===<br /> These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.<br /> <br /> When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.<br /> <br /> In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6). <br /> <br /> The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref><br /> <br /> In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race. <br /> <br /> House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader.<br /> <br /> ==Symbols==<br /> [[Image:Democraticjackass.jpg|thumb|250px|"A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion" by Thomas Nast]]<br /> The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.<br /> <br /> In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle. <br /> <br /> There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.<br /> <br /> [[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party. <br /> <br /> The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today.<br /> <br /> ==Democratic Presidents==<br /> * [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)<br /> * [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)<br /> * [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)<br /> * [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)<br /> * [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)<br /> * [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)<br /> * [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)<br /> * [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)<br /> * [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)<br /> * [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)<br /> * [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)<br /> * [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)<br /> * [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Phonemarks]]<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ===Current===<br /> *Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.<br /> * Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007) <br /> * Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions<br /> *Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).<br /> *Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006<br /> * Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present<br /> * Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.<br /> * Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period<br /> * Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change<br /> ===Historical===<br /> * ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries. <br /> * Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources<br /> * Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]<br /> * Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.<br /> * Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]<br /> * Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995). <br /> * Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period: <br /> **includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer<br /> * Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992) <br /> * Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition<br /> * Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)<br /> * Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]<br /> *[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States Political Organizations]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Parties]]<br /> [[Category:Democratic Party]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Election,_2008&diff=547961 United States Presidential Election, 2008 2008-11-03T03:16:29Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 547958 by ChadHowell (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Gp_ppl_obama_mccain_flag-capitol.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Barack Obama and John McCain]] {{move|United States presidential election, 2008}}<br /> <br /> The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref> [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]] is the [[Democratic Party]] nominee, with Senator [[Joe Biden]] of [[Delaware]] as his Vice Presidential running mate. Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]] is the Republican candidate. His Vice Presidential nominee is [[Alaska]] [[Governor]] [[Sarah Palin]].<br /> <br /> Obama held a 5 to 7 point lead most of the summer, but faded steadily in August. After the selection of Palin, the first woman ever on a GOP ticket, McCain leapfrogged Obama in the national polls and held a slim 2.5 point lead in mid September. Until this point, nationwide polls all year had shown a massive defeat for GOP candidates for Congress. With the GOP running 10 points behind, the Democrats stood a good chance of gaining 5-9 Senate seats and 15-20 House seats. The surge in McCain's polls helped pull up the GOP numbers; by Sept. 12 the GOP deficit was only 3.6 points, indicating small losses.<ref>Poll results from [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ RealClearPolitics]</ref> However, more recently the margin has once again widened to about 5 points.<br /> <br /> ==First election without incumbents since 1928== <br /> If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the [[Vice President of the United States]] will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election. In the [[United States presidential election of 1952]], the race was between Republican candidate [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] and Democratic candidate [[Adlai Stevenson]]. Vice President [[Alben Barkley]] sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on ''[[Fox News]] Sunday''.<br /> <br /> ==Differences between 2008 and other elections==<br /> In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to [[Hillary Clinton]]'s campaign. <br /> <br /> The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate [[Ron Paul]] and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Uncommitted Electorate ==<br /> <br /> As of the beginning of October, 2008 approximately 6-8% of poll respondents are undecided.<br /> <br /> ==Opinion polling== <br /> {| class="wikitable"<br /> |-<br /> ! Polling Outfit<br /> ! Date<br /> ! Sample*<br /> ! Obama (D)<br /> ! McCain (R)<br /> |-<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]<br /> | 10/29 - 10/31<br /> | 3000 LV<br /> | '''51'''<br /> | 46<br /> |-<br /> |[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Traditional]<br /> | 10/29 - 10/31<br /> | 2516 LV<br /> | '''52'''<br /> | 42<br /> |-<br /> |-<br /> |[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Expanded]<br /> | 10/29 - 10/31<br /> | 2480 LV<br /> | '''52'''<br /> | 42<br /> |-<br /> |-<br /> |[http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm Zogby Tracking]<br /> | 10/29 - 10/31<br /> | 1200 LV<br /> | '''49'''<br /> | 44<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> *RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.<br /> <br /> Most polling does not include third party candidates. While that was an issue back in May when Barr attracted 6% of the vote in four way polling and Nader 4%<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race</ref>, it has become a virutally non-issue with the election drawing near. Third party candidates generally have much lower percentage of votes cast for them than they poll beforehand, and this election that especially seems to be true.<br /> <br /> Also, when possible, polling is reported without counting 'leaners'. Leaners early on were favoring McCain, but they have also become less of an issue as the election has progressed nor does either candidate seem to have an advantage in this area with the shrinking number of people who still fit in this category.<br /> <br /> Due to the nature of the presidential election where Presidents are elected state by state instead of total votes received nationwide, it is possible in a close race for a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote. This is meaningful if the election is within a point or possibly two, but with Obama holding a greater lead than that, the electoral college is also favoring him.<ref>http://www.pollster.com/</ref><ref>[http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html Politico's 2008 Swing State Map]</ref><ref>[http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right]</ref><br /> <br /> == McCain vs. Obama ==<br /> McCain had the early edge, wrapping up the Republican nomination before Obama was known to be the choice of the Democrats, but this was one of the few advantages he has had. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised far more money than McCain and the Democratic primary saw a surge of new voters coming out leading to a large increase in the rolls of Democrats. From the historical position of a generally equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the numbers have now tilted 41% Democrat to only 32% Republican. From the time that Obama was declared the nominee, opinion polling showed him with a modest advantage over McCain in terms of who the voters would choose to be their next President.<br /> <br /> Obama's strategy was to tie McCain to George Bush, a very unpopular President, even though McCain was not a part of the Bush administration and often clashed with Bush during his time as senator. McCain, for his part, had to walk a fine line with accepting praise from the President to woo conservatives, while at the same time keeping enough distance so as to not alienate moderates. When possible, McCain went after Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.<br /> <br /> On paper, the nomination would seem to heavily favor the Democrats. Overall, Democrat candidates have a +10% advantage over Republicans in a 'generic' election. The current unpopular President is a Republican, and the economy is treading water. Also, based on statistical percentages of articles on each candidate, Obama was being focused on with press coverage far more than McCain. When McCain chastised Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience and that he hadn't been to Iraq or Afghanistan in years, Obama's campaign set up for him to take a trip to both countries. While this is expected in politics, the decision of every major network to send a team of reporters to follow him was unprecedented. Obama spoke to 200,000 people in Berlin in a highly covered speech. McCain spoke to 50,000 in Buffalo shortly thereafter and barely got a whisper. Obama's numbers started to rise, but a good deal of the populace was noticing the disparity as 48% of those polled felt the press was trying to help Obama win.<br /> <br /> Obama seemed pleased to coast on his advantages, but McCain realized he needed to shake things up. He scored by pushing offshore drilling for oil during a time when oil prices were climbing almost daily. Obama rejected the idea, but the poll numbers started to show a greater percentage of Americans warming to the concept<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/61_say_congress_should_vote_on_offshore_drilling_right_now Offshore Drilling poll]</ref> and McCain's numbers started to improve. Obama announced he would accept some measure of offshore drilling, and McCain's momentum was halted and his gains retreated by a couple of points. McCain started an ad campaign that acknowledged Obama's celebrity status, but asking what it meant. A few days later at the start of August he called out Obama for 'playing the race card' when Obama made a reference to McCain and Bush trying to scare people because he (Obama) doesn't look like other Presidents on dollar bills. The Democrats fired back, but quickly let the issue drop when poll numbers showed that most voters did consider Obama's statement to be racist.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/only_22_say_mccain_ad_racist_but_over_half_53_see_obama_dollar_bill_comment_that_way</ref>. The bounce for Obama after the Berlin speech shrank back to pre-trip levels. While Obama continued to enjoy a slight lead in the polls, McCain continued to keep the race close without either candidate breaking away. <br /> <br /> In mid-August both candidates came together at the invitation of Pastor [[Rick Warren]] where each was asked a series of the same questions dealing both with political and personal views. While not a debate, it was the first televised forum where both candidates had a chance to express themselves and their positions. Obama hoped to appeal to Christian conservatives by expressing a religious side while McCain hoped to solidify the conservative base by sharing his own conservative and religious credentials. The difference in style between the two was evident as Obama spent more time explaining and expounding on his positions while McCain was more straight-forward and received more laughs with his candid speaking style. The polling numbers continued as they had been.<br /> <br /> There was a bounce at the start of the Democratic convention, but not what was expected as McCain suddenly drew even in the race. The friction between Hillary Clinton and Obama as well as the perceived slight of Hillary when Biden was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate hurt Obama at a time when his approval was expected to climb. McCain then made a mistake by airing an ad of Hillary Clinton that 'supported' him. Clinton was set to speak at the convention and it was no secret that there was bad blood between her and Obama and it was widely believed that her support for Obama would be lukewarm at best. Instead, apparently galvanized by McCain's hubris before her speech, she came out strongly for Obama and rallied those who supported her. Obama's pre-convention edge returned. Obama followed it up with a very strong speech the next day in a huge stadium with fireworks and a Greek temple. [[Dick Morris]], a political pundit usually giving advice to Republicans felt that Obama had done such a good job reaching out to the groups that he needed that he would pull ahead by double-digits. In order to suppress the bounce from the convention, McCain announced his Vice Presidential candidate the next day, a woman, Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]. The bounce for Obama was muted at first, but increased in the following days to surpass pre-convention levels, especially as Sarah Palin came under heavy attack in the media.<br /> <br /> The edge continued as the Republican convention began. Losing a day to the hurricane, their shortened convention came out strong as well, emphasizing John McCain as a patriot and a maverick for change who is tested and will do what is right for the country regardless of political affiliation. It was notable for the secondary role that the sitting President played, talking only briefly and barely being mentioned after that. The convention tied McCain to [[Ronald Reagan]], a popular Republican President who was able to gain the support of a good number of conservative Democrats, an ability that McCain would badly need to emulate. While the convention had very high ratings starting with Palin's well received speech, it was unclear what the impact would be in the polls. Indeed Obama continued to lead directly afterward, but that soon changed with a turn of about 8 points and a slim lead for McCain. The Republican convention had actually more than balanced out the powerful Democratic convention.<br /> <br /> While Obama had stated that his campaign would avoid negative advertising, as it became clear that the bounce from the convention was continuing to last and he might lose the election, his campaign turned more forcefully to negative advertising. In ads aired since the Republican convention through mid September, McCain's ads were about Obama 56% of the time, but Obama's ads were about his opponents 77% of the time.<ref>http://news.aol.com/article/campaign-ads-not-getting-much-air-time/142625</ref> Obama also received a large boost from the press which vigorously attacked McCain, but even more so Palin. Obama appeared on ''[[O'Reilly Factor|The O'Reilly Factor]]'' and was treated with civility and respect, even if not with agreement. McCain and his wife appeared on ''The View'' and were treated like last week's gutter trash. The constant negative barrage and reporting slowly moved the numbers back to even.<br /> <br /> As the negative articles on Palin continued to intensify, some of which just quoted celebrities who had never met her calling her "whacko" or a "hater of women", her first major interview with Gibson was a turning point. Gibson asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine, but wouldn't define it for her even as she asked questions for clarifications. When she then answered with her understanding, Gibson rebuked her by implying that she misunderstood the doctrine. In truth, since the term is only a press invention, it has taken on different meanings at different times and the definition that Palin gave matched one that Gibson himself had used years earlier. Nevertheless, it was a moment and was jumped on by the press. Those who saw the interview voted heavily that they were now less likely to vote for Palin. The attack on her had muted her effectiveness, even if it was unjustified.<br /> <br /> Stemming the tide of the McCain campaign's lead became a strong swing for Obama with a series of events that went to the Democratic nominee's favor. The polls began to tack to Obama's favor with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and a subsequent 500-point drop in the Dow Jones Index. Then, President Bush sounded a major alarm on the economy and proposed a huge 700 billion dollar rescue plan for the mortgage industry, which sent shock waves through the American populace and swept them with even more fear on the economic picture. Bush called both Presidential nominees to meet with him and Congress. It gave Obama a boost in legitimacy, his previous Achilles' heel. While he had a weak record in accomplishments and showing leadership, the chance to be propelled to a position of prominence handed it to him on a silver platter. Moreover, the plan was more problematic among Republicans than it was among Democrats, giving Obama another boost merely by supporting it while putting McCain on more shaky ground. Both candidates supported it once again blurring McCain's advantage in experience if both men were seen as interchangeable in their reaction.<br /> <br /> McCain chose to suspend his campaign until a deal on the bailout was reached, a mistake. The Democrats could add pork to the plan and make it even more unpalatable to the Republicans, and they did. As the first debate loomed and no deal had been reached, McCain was in a quandary. He chose to attend the debate under the view that the plan was well under way to being passed. After the debate the plan was actually defeated and wouldn't be adopted, with more changes, until the following week.<br /> <br /> McCain's debate with Obama went well and he was viewed as having done better than expected. Unfortunately for him, Obama was also viewed as doing better than expected and was seen as looking Presidential, further cementing his standing and locking in a lead in the polls that had become rather substantial. The Vice Presidential debate was the most watched in history and Palin was given high marks for her performance, but unfortunately for the Republican ticket, Biden was also on his game that night and also came across well. There were no changes in the polling numbers and the number of undecided voters began to quickly dwindle. The second and third debates caused little change as well.<br /> <br /> With Obama spending 110 million dollars on TV advertising in October alone, including 30 minute specials on each of the major networks, McCain will be hard pressed to make up the necessary ground to win the election after being outspent by 3 to 1 for TV adds over that time period. He can't count on regular TV to help put in a good word for him either, as late night political jokes are running at a pace of 7 jokes against McCain/Palin for every 1 joke against Obama/Biden and a study of news stories on McCain and Obama since the end of the conventions found that 57% of news stories about McCain were negative while only 29% were for Obama.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/</ref> A later study by the independent Pew Research Center found that the discrepency had grown even worse. McCain had 57% of the articles about him negative while only 14% were positive, while Obama had more positive articles than negative. The only network to achieve a balance, 40% negative for both, was [[FoxNews]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445846,00.html</ref><br /> <br /> == State by State Breakdown ==<br /> [[Image:Presidential election map.gif|right|thumb|350px|Battleground states]] The United States had become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:<br /> <br /> State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004<br /> <br /> #Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)<br /> #Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)<br /> #New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)<br /> #New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)<br /> #Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)<br /> #Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)<br /> #Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)<br /> #Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)<br /> #Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)<br /> <br /> It is assumed that the 2008 election will be similar where close battles in a few states could determine the outcome. Individual state polling numbers for the 2008 election are provided. Similar to the overall election where the number of undecided voters is quickly dwindling, the numbers are coming much close to approaching the full 100% than they were earlier in the campaign. This requires a candidate changing a voter's mind to improve his standing, a much harder task than simply convincing an undecided.<br /> <br /> * Red = McCain leading<br /> * Blue = Obama leading<br /> <br /> {| class="wikitable"<br /> |-<br /> ! State<br /> ! Obama (D)<br /> ! McCain (R)<br /> ! Source<br /> ! Updated<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Alabama<br /> |39%<br /> |60%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alabama/election_2008_alabama_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/22/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Alaska<br /> |41%<br /> |57%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alaska/election_2008_alaska_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> | 10/28/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Arkansas<br /> |44%<br /> |54%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/election_2008_arkansas_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/27/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Arizona<br /> |46%<br /> |51%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/arizona/election_2008_arizona_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |California<br /> |61%<br /> |34%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/25/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Colorado<br /> |50%<br /> |46%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Connecticut<br /> |56%<br /> |39%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/14/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Delaware<br /> |56%<br /> |41%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/delaware/election_2008_delaware_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/10/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Florida<br /> |51%<br /> |47%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Georgia<br /> |47%<br /> |52%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/georgia/election_2008_georgia_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Hawaii<br /> |61%<br /> |31%<br /> |[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/hawaii.html SurveyUSA]<br /> |03/06/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Idaho<br /> |37%<br /> |53%<br /> |[http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/idaho.html DailyKos.com]<br /> |07/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Illinois<br /> |56%<br /> |39%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/illinois/election_2008_illinois_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/13/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Indiana<br /> |46%<br /> |49%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/indiana/election_2008_indiana_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/29/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Iowa<br /> |52%<br /> |44%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/23/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Kansas<br /> |41%<br /> |54%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kansas/election_2008_kansas_presidential_election Rasmuseen]<br /> |10/13/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Kentucky<br /> |43%<br /> |55%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kentucky/election_2008_kentucky_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/29/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Louisiana<br /> |41%<br /> |57%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/22/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Maine<br /> |51%<br /> |46%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/02/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Maryland<br /> |60%<br /> |37%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maryland/election_2008_maryland_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/20/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Massachusetts<br /> |62%<br /> |34%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/13/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Michigan<br /> |53% <br /> |43%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/28/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Minnesota<br /> |55% <br /> |43%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/28/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Mississippi<br /> |45%<br /> |53%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mississippi/election_2008_mississippi_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/27/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Missouri<br /> |48%<br /> |47%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Montana<br /> |46%<br /> |50%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/montana/election_2008_montana_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/29/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Nebraska<br /> |37%<br /> |56%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Nevada<br /> |50%<br /> |46%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/27/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |New Hampshire<br /> |50%<br /> |46%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/23/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |New Jersey<br /> |50%<br /> |42%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/election_2008_new_jersey_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/07/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |New Mexico<br /> |54%<br /> |44%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2008_new_mexico_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/28/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |New York<br /> |57%<br /> |37%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/14/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |North Carolina<br /> |50%<br /> |48%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/29/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |North Dakota<br /> |41%<br /> |55%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_dakota/election_2008_north_dakota_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/08/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Ohio<br /> |49%<br /> |45%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Oklahoma<br /> |32%<br /> |63%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oklahoma/election_2008_oklahoma_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/11/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Oregon<br /> |54%<br /> |42%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/election_2008_oregon_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Pennsylvania<br /> |51%<br /> |47%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election2 Rasmussen]<br /> |10/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Rhode Island <br /> |58%<br /> |39%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/rhode_island/election_2008_rhode_island_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/13/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |South Carolina<br /> |43%<br /> |54%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/20/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |South Dakota<br /> |44%<br /> |53%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_dakota/election_2008_south_dakota_presidential_election2 Rasmussen]<br /> |10/30/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Tennessee<br /> |42%<br /> |54%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/tennessee/election_2008_tennessee_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/16/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Texas<br /> |44%<br /> |54%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/election_2008_texas_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/21/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Utah<br /> |32%<br /> |64%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/utah/election_2008_utah_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/14/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Vermont<br /> |60%<br /> |36%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/vermont/election_2008_vermont_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/13/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Virginia<br /> |51%<br /> |47%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/26/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Washington<br /> |54%<br /> |43%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/washington/election_2008_washington_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/22/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |West Virginia<br /> |43%<br /> |52%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/election_2008_west_virginia_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/20/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:blue"<br /> |Wisconsin<br /> |51%<br /> |44%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2008_wisconsin_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |10/23/08<br /> |- style="background:white; color:red"<br /> |Wyoming<br /> |39%<br /> |58%<br /> |[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/wyoming/election_2008_wyoming_presidential_election Rasmussen]<br /> |09/10/08<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Analysis of States by Region ==<br /> Because of the [[electoral college]] system in the United States, it is important to analyze the presidential election by each state. These states are grouped into regions.<br /> <br /> === New England ===<br /> [[Barack Obama]] is almost certain to win almost every state in this region, which tend to be very [[liberal]]. The only exception is in New Hampshire, where [[John McCain]] is well liked and George Bush won in 2000. This state is expected to be competitive. On the other hand, with only four electoral votes, the impact on the election will not be as great as some other battleground states. <br /> <br /> === Mid-Atlantic ===<br /> [[New York]], [[Delaware]], and [[Maryland]] are solidly Democrat and will vote for Obama this election. [[New Jersey]] is less so, but still has Democratic leanings, and will probably go for Obama. [[Pennsylvania]] is a very important swing state for both candidates, as it has 21 electoral votes, fifth most in the nation, and has both liberal and conservative elements. In recent years, the state has moved toward becoming Democrat. However, it is not yet at the point that is safely in the Democratic camp, and will still be focused on heavily by both candidates during this election cycle. McCain still has a very good chance because Obama was unable to connect with the working-class citizens of Pennsylvania during the Democratic primary. <br /> <br /> === South-Atlantic ===<br /> [[Washington, D.C.]] is overwhelmingly liberal and will vote for Obama; however, with three electoral votes its significance is limited. Although [[Virginia]] has usually been Republican territory in Presidential elections, this year it has become a competitive state. Democrats will work on increasing the voter turnout in the northern part of the state, with a high population of D.C. transplants. McCain's strength is in the southern regions and among the military. In the Carolinas, which usually votes Republican, McCain is seen as having the edge, but Obama may be competitive in these states if he mobilizes the African-American population. [[Georgia]] is a state where a third-party candidate [[Bob Barr]] could make a difference. While most voters favor McCain, he could lose enough votes to Barr to lose the state, especially if there is a large black turnout. [[Florida]] is a very close swing state, most famously known for its role in [[United States presidential election, 2000|Election 2000]]. An important constituency in this state is the [[Jewish]] population, who are continuing to support Obama over McCain. Cuban-Americans, who are most upset with Obama's statements that he would meet with Fidel Castro, back McCain.<br /> <br /> === Deep South ===<br /> John McCain will do well in the deep south. This includes the states of [[Texas]], [[Alabama]], [[Mississippi]], [[Louisiana]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Arkansas]], [[Tennessee]], [[Kentucky]] and [[West Virginia]]. This area is generally [[conservative]], and consistently vote Republican in Presidential elections. Although Obama believes in a fifty-state strategy, it is unlikely that such a strategy will be helpful in getting out the vote in these states apart from the black population. <br /> <br /> ===Swing States (Great Lakes Region)===<br /> Strategists believe that the Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa but that the outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008. This is confirmed by recent polling. However, due to the location of the Republican Convention in Minnesota, the state, with ten electoral votes, can come back into play.<br /> <br /> === West ===<br /> Barack Obama is almost certainly guaranteed a win in the coastal states of California, Oregon and Washington, while John McCain is favored in Arizona, Idaho, Utah and Texas. Nevada, which voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, may turn to Obama if Bob Barr manages to pull enough votes from McCain.<br /> <br /> ===Other Important Swing States===<br /> Moreover, it is very important for republicans to hold Ohio and Florida. Fortunately, both states have tended to lean republican in the last two presidential elections. Although Florida was disputed in election 2000, it went to Bush undeniably in 2004. Virginia will also be heavily contested this year.<br /> <br /> == General Strategy ==<br /> <br /> McCain's team wants to convince the electorate of the long-term leadership and experience that John McCain has shown in two decades of government service while emphasizing the relative untested nature of Barak Obama.<br /> <br /> Obama's team wants to convince the electorate that Obama is the candidate of fresh ideas while downplaying his relative inexperience compared to the more seasoned McCain. When possible, McCain is lumped together with George Bush, an unpopular President.<br /> <br /> ===Republican Strategy===<br /> With more limited funding than his Democratic rival, McCain had favored open town hall meetings to attract the greatest number of people. He is focusing his advertising on swing states. He also asked for open debates with Obama of the Lincoln-Douglas variety where candidates can talk directly to each other, but this was not accepted by the Democratic camp which prefers the current structured format.<br /> <br /> McCain will highlight his record of leadership, his service to his country and stress that as President he can be counted on to keep America safe from outside threats. McCain's strongest supporters are the elderly - the group that most wants stability.<br /> <br /> McCain's choice of [[Alaska]] [[Governor]] [[Sarah Palin]] as his Vice Presidential nominee was a departure from what was expected and helped to show that he would go down paths that the Republican party had not done in the past. McCain has touted Palin's record of standing up to the Alaska Republican party when she resigned from an Ethics Commission in protest over a lack of ethics of fellow commissioners, as well as when she ran against, and beat, then-incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in the Republican primary in 2006. McCain will continue to tout her as a "maverick" to complement his own maverick image that he is trying to emphasize. Last, by choosing a female running mate, McCain hoped to pick up the votes of female voters disaffected with the perceived slight of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Prior to the start of the Democratic convention, 30% of Hillary's supporters had still not backed Obama and there was a good deal of bad blood between the two.<br /> <br /> With the unfolding of the campaign season and watching the Democratic strategy and how it was playing out in the press and polls, the McCain campaign decided not to cede the moniker of change to Obama, but rather to take it upon themselves by emphasizing that McCain has a track record of change - while Obama does not. The McCain campaign feels it needs to have the voters ask who can be trusted more to get the job done, and if that occurs, then they have the advantage.<br /> <br /> With the selection of Palin, and the energy it has brought to the conservative base, McCain has taken to larger rallies, as opposed to town hall meetings and press conferences. By mid-September, he had gone four weeks without a town hall, and three weeks without a press conference, instead sticking to larger engagements, appearing alongside his vice presidential nominee, with larger crowds than he had experienced earlier in his campaign.<br /> <br /> ===Democratic Strategy===<br /> Democrats are confident that the low popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which John McCain supports, puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008. They have been cautious in the Iraq arena realizing that 'The Surge' worked and they were on the wrong end of that issue. Focus is being put on a timeline for troops coming home, a position that most of the American population favors.<br /> <br /> Democrats believe it is their race to lose, but also realize they had a good chance to win the last two Presidential elections and came up short each time. General wisdom also states that a poor economy favors Obama, so they will try to paint a dire picture in this area. As in past elections, differences between those who have obtained a high income level and those who have not will be emphasized. In fact, the Democratic strategy in many ways mirrors that of their strategy in 1992 when the Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately caused economic disruption, knowing full well that the public would blame sitting president [[George H.W. Bush]], and thereby allowing [[Bill Clinton]] to win that year's presidential race.<br /> <br /> Favored by the young, Democrats will try hard to encourage and get out the young vote, a task that has proven more difficult than expected in the last two election cycles. To their advantage, Obama made his vice presidential pick via text message to cell phone numbers registered on the site. The announcement went to 3 million cell phones, a useful database for "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts, when voters may not be home or reachable on their landline.<br /> <br /> As an extension of the DNC's strategy in the 2006 elections, led by [[Howard Dean]], Barack Obama has been working towards a "50-state strategy." The campaign is working to place campaign offices throughout the country with a focus on voter registration. The increase in the rolls of Democratic voters from the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama played out well for the Democrats and puts pressure on Senator McCain even in typically red states, and more specifically, "Lean Republican" states, to use the Cook Political Report's term. In addition, with a fundraising advantage, Obama is airing ads in those tight states forcing McCain to make decisions about whether to use funds to match ads and campaign efforts in those states or rely on historical results that those states will support him and focus funds in traditional toss-up states instead.<br /> <br /> ==Fundraising==<br /> <br /> Barack Obama had a significant edge over Hillary Clinton in the fundraising department during their contest for the Democratic nomination, but both actually set records for raising money and both raised far more money than John McCain. McCain didn’t have to spend as much since he locked up the Republican nomination much earlier than Obama locked up the Democratic. Both Obama and McCain said they would accept government funds--which would also cap how much the candidates could raise on their own--but Obama, who could presumably raise more through his own sources, changed his mind and later declined. Much of McCain’s war chest will come from the Republican Party in general, which has more money to spend than their Democratic counterparts. McCain’s campaign raised $47 million in August, a very sizable figure for him so far and a personal record, but not as strong as Obama’s best months. In the same time period, Obama set a record with $66 million. Obama, still having an edge in fundraising that has continued throughout his run for the Presidency, saw $10 million collected the day after Sarah Palin’s strongly received convention speech, a new one day record.<ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/after-palin-speech-obama-has-record-10-million-day/ After Palin speech, Obama has record $10 million day]</ref> The Palin announcement has been good for John McCain's fundraising as well.<br /> <br /> Obama set a new record of $150 million raised in September and over $600 million overall.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-raises-record-breaking-m/</ref> Obama's camp does not release information on who contributes to the campaign.<br /> <br /> ==Election Politics==<br /> <br /> As a general truth, political parties will put on their best face, but stoop to almost any level to make their candidate win. This election is no exception as the Democratic party has taken to busing in homeless people in Ohio to register them and have them vote on the same day, then bus them back. A loophole in the law permits this without checking identification, and that loophole is being exploited for political gain.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433681,00.html</ref><br /> <br /> ==Conventions==<br /> <br /> ===Democratic National Convention===<br /> The 2008 Democratic National Convention was held in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]], from August 25 to August 27 at Pepsi Center. There, Senator Obama and his running mate were selected to be the party nominee's. Barack Obama will accepted the party's nomination in front of a crowd of more than 75,000 in a free, open event held at INVESCO Field at Mile High, in a platform resemblant to a Greek temple. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] is the Permanent Chair of the Convention.<br /> <br /> The convention had a rocky start as friction between supporters of Obama and the Clintons was not resolved. Instead of Obama getting a bump in the polls, his support actually declined. The Democrats also seemed to be at odds on finding a unifying strategy for how hard to attack John McCain and how to present it. As Democratic pundit James Carville said in an interview on [[CNN]], "If this party has a message, it's done a <heck> of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp</ref><br /> <br /> A bleak convention was turned around by the Clintons. Infighting between Obama and Hillary continued through the day of her speech, but a comprise was reached, and, beyond expectations, she gave a rousing speech for Obama - possibly as an angry response to McCain's latest ad that showed her 'supporting' him. Bill Clinton the next night also praised Obama, something that he failed to effectively do in 2000 for Al Gore when he centered on his accomplishments and gave little more than lip service to Gore with statements amounting to 'and Al Gore was there too'. The convention, possibly remembering that, gave him the topic he was to speak on instead of choosing his own. Clinton was angered, but it worked. He came through. By the time Obama spoke on the last night, the theme that was missing at first was clear, and Obama mixed a message of attacking McCain with the need for change and even outlining some expensive programs that would appeal to the target populace who has been lukewarm to him. From a political point of view, the convention did what it was supposed to.<br /> <br /> ===Convention Schedule===<br /> <br /> '''Monday 8/25 (Theme: One Nation):'''<br /> <br /> * Former President [[Jimmy Carter]]<br /> * [[Speaker of the House]] [[Nancy Pelosi]], D-[[California]]<br /> * Congressman [[Jesse Jackson, Jr.]], D-[[Illinois]]<br /> * Mayor John Hickenlooper, D-[[Denver]]<br /> * Senator [[Amy Klobuchar]], D-[[Minnesota]]<br /> * Mayor Manny Diaz, D-[[Miami]]<br /> * Illinois state leaders Alexi Giannoulis, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan<br /> * Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU<br /> * [[National Education Association]] (NEA) President Reg Weaver<br /> * AFT President Randi Weingarten<br /> * [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] President Nancy Keenan<br /> * Senator [[Claire McCaskill]], D-Missouri<br /> * Former State Representative Lee Hamilton, D-[[Indiana]]<br /> * Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle<br /> * Maya Soetoro-Ng - Barack Obama's half-sister<br /> * Jerry Kellman - "Mentor and long-time friend of Barack Obama"<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Tuesday 8/26 (Theme: Renewing America's Promise):'''<br /> <br /> * Senator [[Patrick Leahy]], D-[[Vermont]]<br /> * Governor [[Joe Manchin]], D-[[West Virginia]], Chair of the Democratic Governors’ Association<br /> * Governor [[Chet Culver]], D-[[Iowa]]<br /> * [[California]] State Controller John Chiang<br /> * Change to Win’s Anna Burger<br /> * [[AFL-CIO]] President John Sweeney<br /> * [[Planned Parenthood of America]] President Cecile Richards.<br /> * Pay Equity pioneer Lilly Ledbetter<br /> * Governor [[Brian Schweitzer]], D-[[Montana]]<br /> * Governor [[Deval Patrick]], D-[[Massachusetts]]<br /> * Governor [[Kathleen Sebelius]], D-[[Kansas]]<br /> * Governor [[Janet Napolitano]], D-[[Arizona]]<br /> * Governor [[Jim Doyle]], D-[[Wisconsin]]<br /> * Governor [[Ed Rendell]], D-[[Pennsylvania]]<br /> * Governor [[Ted Strickland]], D-[[Ohio]]<br /> * Governor [[David Paterson]], D-[[New York]]<br /> * Senator [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], D-[[Pennsylvania]]<br /> * Former Secretary of Energy and Transportation Federico Peña<br /> * House Majority Leader [[Steny Hoyer]], D-[[Maryland]]<br /> * House Democratic Caucus Chair [[Rahm Emanuel]], D-[[Illinois]]<br /> * Representative [[Xavier Becerra]] (D-California), Assistant to the Speaker of the House;<br /> * Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair [[Chris Van Hollen]]<br /> * Representatives [[Nydia Velazquez]] (D-[[New York]])<br /> * Linda Sanchez (D-CA)<br /> * Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)<br /> * Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)<br /> * Mike Honda (D-CA)<br /> * Senator and former Presidential candidate [[Hillary Clinton]] (D-NY)<br /> * Former Governor [[Mark Warner]] (D-VA)--Keynote Speaker<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Wednesday 8/27 (Theme: Securing America's Future): '''<br /> <br /> * Former President [[Bill Clinton]]<br /> * Governor [[Bill Richardson]], D-[[New Mexico]]<br /> * Senator [[John Kerry]], D-[[Massachusetts]]<br /> * Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], D-[[South Dakota]]<br /> * Senator [[Jack Reed]], D-[[Rhode Island]]<br /> * Mayor [[Richard Daley]], D-[[Chicago]]<br /> * Senator [[Evan Bayh]], D-[[Indiana]]<br /> * Senator [[Joe Biden]], D-[[Delaware]]<br /> * Senator [[Jay Rockefeller]], D-[[West Virginia]] <br /> * Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]], D-[[Nevada]]<br /> * Senator [[Ken Salazar]], D-[[Colorado]]<br /> * House Majority Whip [[James E. Clyburn]], D-[[South Carolina]]<br /> * Congressman [[Robert Wexler]] (D-[[Florida]])<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Thursday 8/28 (Theme: Change You Can Believe In):'''<br /> <br /> * [[Colorado]] [[Governor]] [[Bill Ritter]]<br /> * Former Vice President [[Al Gore]]<br /> * Presidential nominee [[Barack Obama]]<br /> <br /> ===Republican National Convention===<br /> The 2008 Republican National Convention was held in [[Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]] from September 1 ([[Labor Day]]) until September 4. The presumptive nominee was Senator McCain. The location has political significance in that [[Minnesota]] will likely be a close state during the general election, as will it's neighboring states [[Wisconsin]] and [[Iowa]].<br /> <br /> The convention schedule had to be altered due to the upcoming landfall of [[Hurricane Gustav]]. The first day almost entirely focused on raising money for Hurricane relief. This led to a shortened three day convention instead of four and there was some shuffling of who was speaking on which day to accommodate the suddenly shortened time span. In a surprise, George W. Bush was only delivered an eight minute speech by satellite. In another surprise Sarah Palin's speech was watched by as many people as saw Obama give his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic convention, as over 40 million people tuned in.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548482/</ref> She was considered the highlight of the convention, even surpassing John McCain's speech the next day, and was noted for doing an exceptional job. Recognizing the strong asset that they have in her, the Republicans made reference to her many times on the last day of the convention. McCain, not known for being comfortable reading prepared speeches in a convention hall, delivered a solid speech. While Obama continued to enjoy a lead in the polls, it changed quickly thereafter to a slight McCain-Palin edge. The Republican convention more than canceled out a very powerful Democratic convention.<br /> <br /> ===Convention Schedule===<br /> <br /> '''Monday 9/1 (Theme: Service):'''<br /> <br /> *RNC Chairman Mike Duncan<br /> <br /> *[[First Lady]] [[Laura Bush]]<br /> <br /> *[[Cindy McCain]]<br /> <br /> '''Tuesday 9/2 (Theme: Reform):'''<br /> *Former [[New York City]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]], Keynote speaker<br /> <br /> *Governor Jon Huntsman, R-[[Utah]]<br /> <br /> *Governor [[Linda Lingle]], R-[[Hawaii]]<br /> <br /> *Governor [[Sarah Palin]], R-[[Alaska]]<br /> <br /> *Former Gov. [[Mike Huckabee]], R-[[Arkansas]]<br /> <br /> *Former Gov. and Homeland Security Secretary [[Tom Ridge]], R-[[Pennsylvania]]<br /> <br /> *Former Lt. Governor [[Michael Steele]], R-[[Maryland]]<br /> <br /> *Senator [[Tom Coburn]], R-[[Oklahoma]]<br /> <br /> *Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-[[Tennessee]]<br /> <br /> *House Minority Leader [[John Boehner]], R-[[Ohio]]<br /> <br /> *Congressman Marsha Blackburn, R-[[Tennessee]]<br /> <br /> *Congressman Luis Fortuño, R-[[Puerto Rico]]<br /> <br /> *Congressman Adam Putnam, R-[[Florida]]<br /> <br /> *State Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-[[California]]<br /> <br /> *Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State<br /> <br /> *Chris Collins<br /> <br /> *Carolyn Dunn<br /> <br /> *Phil Hayes<br /> <br /> *Lisa Keegan<br /> <br /> *Ruth Novodor<br /> <br /> *Dr. Elena Rios <br /> <br /> *Shirley Sadler<br /> <br /> *Joe Watkins<br /> <br /> '''Wednesday 9/3 (Theme: Prosperity):'''<br /> <br /> *[[Cindy McCain]]<br /> <br /> *Republican Party’s Vice Presidential Nominee<br /> <br /> *Governor [[Bobby Jindal]], R-[[Louisiana]] <br /> <br /> *Former Gov. [[Mitt Romney]], R-[[Massachusetts]] <br /> <br /> *Senator [[Norm Coleman]], R-[[Minnesota]]<br /> <br /> *Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]], R-[[Texas]]<br /> <br /> *Congressman [[Mike Pence]], R-[[Indiana]]<br /> <br /> *Mayor Mick Cornett, R-Oklahoma City <br /> <br /> *State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-[[California]]<br /> <br /> *Carly Fiorina, Victory ‘08 Chairman for the RNC, former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.<br /> <br /> *Meg Whitman, National Co-Chair for McCain 2008 and former President and CEO of [[eBay]]<br /> <br /> *Renee Amoore*<br /> <br /> *Anne Beiler*<br /> <br /> *Jessica Colon*<br /> <br /> *Christy Swanson*<br /> <br /> *Raul “Danny” Vargas*<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Thursday 9/4 (Theme: Peace):'''<br /> <br /> *[[John McCain]]<br /> <br /> *Governor [[Charlie Crist]], R-[[Florida]]<br /> <br /> *Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]], R-[[Minnesota]]<br /> <br /> *Senator [[Sam Brownback]], R-[[Kansas]]<br /> <br /> *Senator [[Lindsey Graham]], R-[[South Carolina]]<br /> <br /> *Senator [[Mel Martinez]], R-[[Florida]]<br /> <br /> *Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], R-[[Tennessee]]<br /> <br /> *Congressman Mary Fallin, R-[[Oklahoma ]]<br /> <br /> *Michael Williams, Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission<br /> <br /> *David Flau<br /> <br /> *Christopher Fussner<br /> <br /> *Lt. General Carol Mutter, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)<br /> <br /> *Charlie Smith<br /> <br /> ==Vice Presidential Candidates==<br /> <br /> ===Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate===<br /> On August 23rd, Senator Barack Obama announced, via text message to 3 million cell phone numbers of his supporters, his nomination of Joseph Biden to Vice President. Biden's selection was considered to be a prudent move by Obama, filling a hole in his own foreign policy experience that McCain could exploit. With the implosion of [[John Edwards]], Biden was widely expected to be the choice. In order to help build up suspense, Biden said he was not chosen when he spoke to the press the day before, only to be shown as the Vice Presidential candidate the next day. A long-term senator and Washington insider with over two decades of service in the Senate, his earlier plagarism scandal was deemed to be less of a negative than the positive that his strong experience credentials could bring to the race. <br /> <br /> [[Image:06 biden.gif|thumb|left|100px|Joseph Biden]]<br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br /> ===Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate===<br /> [[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|thumb|left|100px|thumb]]<br /> *Governor [[Sarah Palin]] of [[Alaska]] was announced as John McCain's choice early on Friday, August 29th, the day after the Democratic convention ended. A surprise choice not even considered by the press to be on McCain's short list, her selection caught the political world off guard. It had been expected that [[Mitt Romney]] would earn the honor, but McCain had other ideas. At first denigrated by the people in the Obama campaign, Obama's own statement was one of cautious neutrality to feel out what impact her selection would have on the race.<br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br><br /> <br /> In an interesting twist, the selection of the Vice Presidential candidates changed the complexion of the race. By Obama picking Biden, he helped to fill the hole that McCain had been attacking dealing with a lack of foreign policy experience. McCain's strongest point, experience, would lose some of its luster. But the selection of Biden, and the passing over of Hillary Clinton, left another opening. By aligning himself with someone who has been a Democratic stalwart, Obama's claim to change became less pronounced. McCain seized upon that to select a Vice President that no one expected, and a woman, and steal some of the Democratic thunder. Her lack of experience would further cut into the experience angle that had been in play earlier, but her own maverick streak in becoming governor combined with John McCain's maverick choice in selecting her led to a new emphasis on McCain's own maverick past. Suddenly he saw an opportunity to steal the moniker of change that Obama had been wearing, and he went for it. Such a change in position occurring from the Vice Presidential selection in rare in Presidential politics.<br /> <br /> ==Debates==<br /> ===Presidential Debates===<br /> ''Main Article: [[2008 Presidential Debates]]''<br /> <br /> There have been three [[Presidential Debates|presidential debates]] for the 2008 election season. The first debate was held on September 26th, at the University of Mississippi. The topic for the debate was "Foreign Policy & National Security." The debate also talked in length about the economy. It was moderated by Jim Lehrer. The debate was a podium debate, broken into 9 nine-minute segments. The moderator introduced a topic, and then each candidate had 2 minutes to comment. Following their answers, there was 5 minutes of open discussion on the topic, facilitated by the moderator. The result was a statistical draw where both candidates did better than expected in the eyes of the public. The longer term impact worked out well for Obama who already had a lead going in, and benefited from solidfying that position.<br /> <br /> The second debate was held on October 7th, at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. The moderator was Tom Brokaw, and the debate was in a town hall-style. The questions came from audience members and the Internet, as chosen by the moderator. After each question, the candidates will had two minutes each to respond, as well as a one-minute followup to the opposing candidate's response. Again the result was a statical draw as far as who was considered to be the winner. But with time running out for McCain, he needed something to make the poll numbers move, and that required a clear breakthrough. <br /> <br /> The final debate was held on October 15th, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The topic for the debate was "Domestic and Economic Policy" and was moderated by Bob Schieffer. The candidates were seated at a table, as opposed to behind a podium, and the format followed that of the first debate. In addition, though, the candidates were given an opportunity to present a 90-second closing argument. Both candidates were again viewed as having done well, which was a tactical defeat for McCain as the poll numbers showed only small changes.<br /> <br /> ===Vice Presidential Debate===<br /> There was one vice presidential debate held on October 2nd, at Washington University in Saint Louis, MO. The debate was moderated by Gwen Ifill. Palin did much better than expected, but Biden was also in top form. No clear winner emerged and the poll numbers remained largely unchanged, a strategic win for the Democratic ticket that only had to maintain their lead to win the election. Interestingly, the number of people who watched the debate was an alltime record for a Vice Presidential debate, and was viewed by more people than any of the three Presidential debates.<br /> <br /> ==Third parties and Independents==<br /> ===Libertarian party===<br /> The [[Libertarian Party]] selected former Representative [[Bob Barr]] of [[Georgia]] as its 2008 presidential candidate on May 25, 2008.<ref>http://www.lpconvention.org/</ref> Former Democratic candididate [[Mike Gravel]] sought the Libertarian nomination but lost to Barr.<ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/25/libertarians-pick-barr-as-presidential-nominee/ </ref><br /> <br /> Barr has, on his campaign website, linked to a proposed Libertarian strategy laid out by a member of his campaign staff. Although Barr has not officially claimed this as his strategy, the link appears to be a tacit endorsement. The strategy is called the "gold states" strategy. Instead of waging a 50-state campaign with the aim of securing 270 electoral votes and an outright electoral college win, Barr would focus on about 18-20 states where neither Obama or McCain has strong support. Winning that number of states could net Barr from 180-200 electoral votes, and would exceed either Obama or McCain's number and prevent either of them from reaching 270. Under US Constitution Amendment 12, with no candidate having an electoral vote majority, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have to choose the president from the top three electoral vote getters. At this stage, Barr could argue that as the top electoral vote recipient, he should become the President, and might draw support from conservative Democrats displeased with Obama's positions, and from Republicans who dislike McCain.<br /> <br /> Although winning the largest number of electoral votes would assist Barr in making such an argument, it is not absolutely necessary. Given the close divide in the electoral vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Barr could throw the vote into the House by winning a handful of states to garner perhaps 15-20 electoral votes.<br /> <br /> The House of Representatives currently has a Democratic majority, but it is important to note that under the US Constitution Amendment 12, the vote is not a straight vote of the members of the House. Instead, each ''State'' gets one single vote, and that vote is determined by the members from that State. Although many large states like California and New York have large Democratic majorities, these will be balanced by the many smaller Southern and Midwestern states with Republican majorities. A handful of states have an even number of House members, and are split down the middle for control.<br /> <br /> ===Constitution Party===<br /> The [[Constitution Party]] held its convention in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 24 through April 27. The party nominated Pastor [[Chuck Baldwin]] over former U.N. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<ref> http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=751 </ref><br /> <br /> ===Green Party===<br /> [[Cynthia McKinney]], who was defeated in her bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives after voting against the [[Iraq War]] and being arrested on battery charges after striking a Capitol Hill police officer, won the [[environmentalist]] [[Green Party]]'s nomination for president at the party convention July 12, 2008. Running for Vice President on the Green ticket is "Hip-Hop activist and journalist" Rosa Clemente.<ref>http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=79</ref><br /> <br /> ===Independents===<br /> [[Ralph Nader]] announced his independent candidacy for president on February 24, 2008, to focus on "stem[ming] corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promot[ing] labor rights", issues he feels are ignored by the main parties.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb24/0,4670,APNader,00.html</ref> His [[running mate]] is former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors [[Matt Gonzalez]].<ref>http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/</ref><br /> <br /> New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. However, he declared in a February 28, 2008, op-ed article in ''The New York Times'', "I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president," but added that "[i]f a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach—and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy—I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "I'm Not Running for President, but..."]</ref><br /> <br /> <br /> ==Historical Information==<br /> ===Withdrawn Republican Party Candidates===<br /> *Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]], withdrew October 19, 2007, citing a lack of funding.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifK7vLWH4aU4urzB-4bSX1u4QF9QD8SC0EI00</ref> Brownback also had done poorly at key conservative milestones, such as the [[Value Voters Debate]].<ref>http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/pollresults.cfm, Brownback lost sizably to [[Mike Huckabee]].</ref> He endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]]. <br /> *Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007 due to lack of funds.<br /> *Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]] He withdrew after a defeat in [[Florida]], on which he had depended on heavily. He endorsed John McCain afterwards. <br /> *Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]. He withdrew from the race once McCain received the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. He also promised to support McCain as the nominee, thus giving his endorsement to him. <br /> *Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd, withdrew January 19, 2008 and endorsed Governor Mike Huckabee.<br /> *Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th, withdrew June 12, 2008. He has since encouraged people ''not'' to vote McCain and vote third party <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/paul-urging-voters-support-party-candidates/ </ref>.<br /> *Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]], suspended his campaign after poor showings on [[Super Tuesday]] and later endorsed John McCain. <br /> *Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th, withdrew December 20, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Governor [[Mitt Romney]] of [[Massachusetts]]. <br /> *Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]. He endorsed [[John McCain]] of Arizona. <br /> *Former Governor and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew August 12, 2007. He endorsed fmr. Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] of [[New York]].<br /> <br /> ===Potential Republican Candidates Who Declined to Run===<br /> *Former Senator [[George Allen]], Virginia - endorsed Fred Thompson.<br /> *Former Governor [[Jeb Bush]], [[Florida]] - endorsed John McCain. <br /> *[[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]<br /> *Former Senate Majority Leader [[Bill Frist]], Tennessee<br /> *Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]], [[Georgia]]<br /> *Senator [[Chuck Hagel]], [[Nebraska]]<br /> *Former Governor [[George Pataki]], New York<br /> *[[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]]<br /> *Governor [[Mark Sanford]], [[South Carolina]]<br /> *Former Senator [[Rick Santorum]], [[Pennsylvania]]<br /> <br /> <br /> === Withdrawn Democratic Party candidates ===<br /> *Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]]. He became Senator [[Obama]]'s running mate. <br /> *Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]] Suspended her campaign after Obama reached the number of needed delegates. She endorsed him shortly afterwards. <br /> *Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/</ref> He withdrew after a disappointing finish in the [[Iowa Caucus]] and later endorsed Senator [[Barack Obama]]. <br /> *Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]. He withdrew after losing in all of the early primary states. He later endorsed Senator Obama after Obama won the North Carolina primary. <br /> *Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]. He withdrew to seek the Libertarian party nomination (which he lost to Bob Barr.) He also endorsed Green Party Candidate, Jesse Johnson. <ref> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/democratic-candidate-gravel-endorses-green-party-presidential-hopeful/ </ref> <br /> *Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th<ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref> He withdrew to keep his seat in the House of Representatives. <br /> *Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]<ref><br /> [http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/ap-bill-richardson-drops-out-of-democratic-presidential-race/ AP: Bill Richardson Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], January 9, 2008</ref> He withdrew after twin fourth-place finishes (in Iowa and New Hampshire) that showed his credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power. He later endorsed Senator Obama. <br /> *Former Governor [[Tom Vilsack]], Iowa. He dropped out early in the race and endorsed [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]]<br /> <br /> ===Potential Democratic Candidates Who Declined to Run===<br /> *Senator [[Evan Bayh]], [[Indiana]] - endorsed Hillary Clinton<br /> *[[General]] [[Wesley Clark]] (Ret.) - endorsed Hillary Clinton<br /> *Former Senate Minority Leader [[Tom Daschle]], [[South Dakota]]<br /> *Former Governor and current DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], [[Vermont]]<br /> *Senator [[Russ Feingold]], [[Wisconsin]]<br /> *Former Vice President [[Al Gore]], [[Tennessee]]<br /> *Senator [[John Kerry]], Massachusetts - endorsed Barack Obama<br /> *Rev. [[Al Sharpton]]<br /> *Former Governor [[Mark Warner]], [[Virginia]]<br /> <br /> ==Primaries==<br /> <br /> For expanded primary information see [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Primaries]]<br /> <br /> John McCain had to get his footing at first, but was pretty much assured the Republican nomination after [[Super Tuesday]]. Barack Obama had a much tougher road, but rode out a string of victories in February to eventually outlast Clinton and take the nomination. During that time he had raised more money than any other candidate in history giving him a huge boost, a trend that would continue into the general election.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <small><references/></small><br /> <br /> {{2008 presidential candidates}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:2008, United States presidential election,}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]<br /> [[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2008]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=545811 Barack Hussein Obama 2008-10-31T01:01:08Z

<p>ScottA: Undo revision 545809 by Bubbalove13 (Talk)</p> <hr /> <div>'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States of America|president]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] since 2004. On August 23 he chose [[Senator Joseph Biden]] as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was rated the most [[liberal]] Senator by the National Journal, who had rated [[Senator John Kerry]] the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> Obama pretends he's not a socialist, but his own memoir admits that he chose his "friends carefully .... The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/</ref><br /> <br /> Obama voted against strengthening law enforcement. The [[gang]]-like [[murder]] of the 7-year-old nephew of the popular [[American Idol]] contestant Jennifer Hudson was discovered Oct. 27th in [[Chicago]], and the [[suspect]] is a convicted [[felon]] who had violated his [[parole]] conditions.<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story</ref> Yet "[[Obama]] was one of only three [[Illinois]] senators to [[vote]] ''against'' a proposal making it a criminal offense for [[convict]]s on [[probation]] or on [[bail]] to have [[contact]] with a street gang."<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html</ref><br /> <br /> [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]<br /> <br /> If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Obama has not disclosed who really wrote his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," but a computer analysis strongly suggests that Obama's friend, the terrorist Bill Ayers, was the author of key parts of the book.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barak Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten ''Dreams''. A computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of his friend's, the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book. "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed.</ref><ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815</ref> Ayers admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he "should have done more."<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><br /> <br /> Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama received his Democratic Party nomination, recently criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again."<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have observed that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089</ref> The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."<ref name="mind control"/><br /> <br /> ==Obama would be the first Muslim President==<br /> <br /> If elected, Obama would likely become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and could use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office.<ref>Christian Science Monitor, ''At swearing in, congressman [Keith Ellison, D Minnesota, who is a Muslim] wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.'', by Jane Lampman, December 07, 2006, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html]"In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible."</ref><ref>Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]</ref> The overwhelming evidence that he is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> *Obama's background and education are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref><br /> *Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]], which most Christians would not retain.<ref> Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali]. After Obama became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref><br /> *Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref><br /> *Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref><br /> *Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref><br /> *Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref><br /> *On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref><br /> *Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.<br /> *Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref> <br /> *Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."<ref>http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=23073&articleId=3249</ref><br /> *Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Obama downplays his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his church in Chicago in 2008 when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join.<br /> <br /> Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 [[Islamic]] states and Obama was educated at an [[Islamic]] grade school while he lived in an [[Islamic]] country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref> <br /> <br /> __TOC__ <br /> <br /> ==Obama and Elitism==<br /> <br /> Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref><br /> <br /> To counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim was an exaggeration as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.<br /> <br /> Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.<br /> <br /> ==Insights==<br /> <br /> Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref> <br /> <br /> Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br /> <br /> In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref><br /> <br /> Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.<br /> <br /> In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref><br /> <br /> Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref><br /> <br /> Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.<br /> <br /> Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref><br /> <br /> ==Obama and Socialism==<br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the socialist idea of "spreading the wealth" in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay taxes. The slogan "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]]. In addition, his health care plan forces employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system. The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to purchase it themselves. He favors closer ties with Cuba, China, and Venezuela, all communist regimes. <br /> <br /> ==Statements==<br /> Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref><br /> <br /> ==Early life and education==<br /> Barack Hussein Obama II was allegedly born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.<br /> <br /> For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref><br /> <br /> After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.<br /> <br /> Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br /> <br /> ==Legal career==<br /> Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.<br /> <br /> ==Senate career==<br /> Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<br /> <br /> A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref><br /> <br /> His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref><br /> <br /> In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref><br /> <br /> Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.<br /> <br /> In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.<br /> <br /> Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.<br /> <br /> As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref><br /> <br /> According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.<br /> <br /> === Bills co-sponsored ===<br /> Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref><br /> <br /> Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref> <br /> <br /> Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}<br /> <br /> *S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.<br /> <br /> *S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.<br /> <br /> *S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.<br /> <br /> *S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.<br /> <br /> === Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===<br /> <br /> In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.<br /> <br /> Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.<br /> <br /> In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref><br /> <br /> Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential campaign==<br /> [[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]<br /> Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref><br /> <br /> Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. <br /> <br /> By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times, <br /> [http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, <br /> April 29, 2007,</ref><br /> <br /> During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,<br /> {{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}<br /> <br /> In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.<br /> <br /> Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy "...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]<br /> <br /> By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.<br /> <br /> At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, <br /> '''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.<br /> <br /> On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States." <br /> <br /> On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.<br /> <br /> Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref><br /> <br /> Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref><br /> <br /> ===Campaign financing=== <br /> Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].<br /> <br /> ===Secrecy=== <br /> <br /> The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a Presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref> <br /> <br /> # Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)<br /> # Columbia College records<br /> # Columbia Thesis paper<br /> # Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups<br /> # [[Harvard]] College records<br /> # Illinois State Senate records<br /> # [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule<br /> # [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary<br /> # Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers<br /> # Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)<br /> # Occidental College records<br /> # Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate<br /> # Record of baptism<br /> # Selective Service Registration<br /> # Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007<br /> # Scholarly articles<br /> # Access to his Grandmother<br /> # List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists<br /> <br /> Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref><br /> <br /> ===Tone===<br /> <br /> Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history." <br /> <br /> Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref><br /> <br /> As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign. <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.<br /> <br /> Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher <ref>http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html</ref>.<br /> <br /> == Positions and Qualifications ==<br /> Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.<br /> <br /> In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.<br /> [[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]<br /> <br /> Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref><br /> Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.<br /> "The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions" <br /> <br /> Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> <br /> <br /> He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref><br /> <br /> Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><br /> <br /> Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref><br /> <br /> Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.<br /> <br /> == Political views ==<br /> Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> <br /> <br /> Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref><br /> <br /> :As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.<br /> <br /> After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.<br /> <br /> Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br /> <br /> He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref><br /> <br /> Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref><br /> <br /> ::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.<br /> <br /> Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.<br /> <br /> Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the president of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: <br /> * "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref><br /> * "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref> <br /> * "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref><br /> * Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.<br /> <br /> == Foreign policy experience ==<br /> In his presidential campaign, Obama bragged<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other kids in Africa.<br /> <br /> While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref><br /> <br /> Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref> <br /> <br /> During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref><br /> <br /> ==Religious affiliations==<br /> <br /> Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. <br /> In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic." <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]<br /> <br /> [[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref><br /> <br /> {{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref><br /> <br /> Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment. <br /> <br /> {{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.<br /> <br /> And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref><br /> <br /> == Books ==<br /> <br /> * ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415<br /> * ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874<br /> * ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573<br /> * ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)<br /> * ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 <br /> * ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 <br /> * ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 <br /> * ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 <br /> * ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025<br /> <br /> ==Published criticism==<br /> On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." <br /> <br /> <br /> The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref><br /> <br /> In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br /> <br /> Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> [[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> ===Birth Certificate Controversy===<br /> There has been some controversy over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as <br /> authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, an analyst at the Israel Insider website, has concluded based on a photographic analysis of the document that the birth certificate has been altered and is likely not Obama's true birth certificate.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref><br /> <br /> On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref><br /> <br /> A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama] Newsbusters.org, August 22, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, they seek to have the lawsuit dismissed. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/29/fight-smears-website-admits-obama-was-kenyan-citizen-wheres-msm 'Fight the Smears' Website Admits Obama was Kenyan Citizen: Where's the MSM?] NewsBusters.org, September 29, 2008</ref><br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br /> *[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]<br /> *[[The_Honorable_James_David_Manning]]<br /> *[[Black_Liberation_Theology]]<br /> *[[Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now_%28ACORN%29]]<br /> *[[New Party]]<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> *[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.<br /> <br /> ==Sources==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]<br /> *[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]<br /> *[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.<br /> *[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]<br /> *[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing<br /> *[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com<br /> *[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]<br /> *[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]<br /> *[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}<br /> <br /> {{2008 presidential candidates}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States Senators]]<br /> [[Category:Democratic Party]]<br /> [[Category:Liberals]]<br /> [[Category:Muslims]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gene(sis)&diff=544767 Gene(sis) 2008-10-29T03:31:51Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>Genesis or Gene(sis) is the name of a transgenic artwork by Eduardo Kac.<ref>http://www.ekac.org/</ref><br /> <br /> ==What it is==<br /> <br /> The artwork involved implanting a new DNA sequence into bacteria and then mutating it. <br /> <br /> ==How it was done==<br /> <br /> To complete the artwork, Kac took the biblical quote "Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." -Genesis 1:26 and converted it into Morse code. He then translated that Morse code into a DNA sequence.<br /> <br /> - = T, . = C, word space = A, letter space = G<br /> <br /> The quote was chosen specifically by Kac because it to him represented mankind's "divinely sanctioned" right to manipulate the nature of the planet. <br /> <br /> After incorporating this new genetic sequence into the bacteria Kac placed the bacteria on display under a UV lamp. Viewers of the artwork (especially those that disagreed with the notion that mankind had the divine right to manipulate nature) were invited to turn on the lap, thereby mutating the gene and changing the message. <br /> <br /> Giving the viewers the ability to change the biblical message was also chosen as a symbolic part of the artwork, representing a rejection of the passage as inherited in favor of a more favorable interpretation.<ref>http://www.ekac.org/geninfo2.html</ref><br /> <br /> ==Final product==<br /> The end result of the artwork, after mutation, was translated back into English resulting in a new phrase.<br /> <br /> "Let aan have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl<br /> of the air and over every living thing that ioves ua eon the earth."<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gene(sis)&diff=544766 Gene(sis) 2008-10-29T03:28:07Z

<p>ScottA: New page: Genesis or Gene(sis) is the name of a transgenic artwork by Eduardo Kac.<ref>http://www.ekac.org/</ref> ==What it is== The artwork involved implanting a new DNA sequence into bacteria an...</p> <hr /> <div>Genesis or Gene(sis) is the name of a transgenic artwork by Eduardo Kac.<ref>http://www.ekac.org/</ref><br /> <br /> ==What it is==<br /> <br /> The artwork involved implanting a new DNA sequence into bacteria and then mutating it. <br /> <br /> ==How it was done==<br /> <br /> To complete the artwork, Kac took the biblical quote "Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." -Genesis 1:26 and converted it into Morse code. He then translated that Morse code into a DNA sequence.<br /> <br /> - = T, . = C, word space = A, letter space = G<br /> <br /> The quote was chosen specifically by Kac because it to him represented mankind's "divinely sanctioned" right to manipulate the nature of the planet. <br /> <br /> After incorporating this new genetic sequence into the bacteria Kac placed the bacteria on display under a UV lamp. Viewers of the artwork (especially those that disagreed with the notion that mankind had the divine right to manipulate nature) were invited to turn on the lap, thereby mutating the gene and changing the message. <br /> <br /> Giving the viewers the ability to change the biblical message was also chosen as a symbolic part of the artwork, representing a rejection of the passage as inherited in favor of a more favorable interpretation.<ref>http://www.ekac.org/geninfo2.html</ref><br /> <br /> ==Final product==<br /> The end result was the artwork after mutation was translated back into English, resulting in a new phrase.<br /> <br /> "Let aan have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl<br /> of the air and over every living thing that ioves ua eon the earth."<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Molecular_biology&diff=544478 Molecular biology 2008-10-28T18:12:30Z

<p>ScottA: removed false information</p> <hr /> <div>'''Molecular biology''' is the scientific study of the molecular basis of life processes, including cellular respiration, excretion, and reproduction. This branch of biology deals with the nature of biological phenomena at the molecular level through the study of [[DNA]] and [[RNA]], [[protein]]s, and other [[macromolecule]]s involved in genetic information and cell function, characteristically making use of advanced tools and techniques of separation, manipulation, imaging, and analysis. <br /><br /> <br /> The term molecular biology was coined in 1938 by Warren Weaver, then director of the natural sciences program at the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1950 W. T. Astbury of the University of Leeds used the term in its now accepted sense, to describe the area of research, closely related to and often overlapping [[biochemistry]], conducted by biologists whose approach to and interest in biology are principally at the molecular level of organization. The field of molecular biology has grown with the increasing sophistication of available techniques and has quickly built upon its own increases in the understanding of biological processes. In the 1930s, with the help of the technique of [[ultracentrifugation]], [[macromolecule]]s were first studied in detail. Later, with the use of [[X-ray crystallography]] their three-dimensional structures were described. In the 1940s the process by which individual [[gene]]s produce their unique products began to be understood as resulting from the different sequences of the [[base pair]]s that make up the [[gene]]s. <br /> <br /> In the 1950s [[Linus Pauling]] described the three-dimensional structure of [[protein]]s, and James Watson and Francis Crick described the [[double helix]] of the [[DNA]] molecule. Further advances were made in understanding [[DNA]], [[protein]], and [[virus]] synthesis and the regulation of [[gene]]s, and by the 1970s, the techniques of [[genetic engineering]] were enabling molecular biologists to study higher plants and animals, opening up the possibility of manipulating plant and animal [[gene]]s to achieve greater agricultural productivity. Such techniques also opened the way for the development of [[gene therapy]]. <br /> <br /> ==Timeline of Molecular Biology Discoveries==<br /> The chief discoveries of molecular biology took place in a period of only about twenty-five years.<br /> <br /> {| class="wikitable"<br /> |-<br /> ! Date<br /> ! Event<br /> <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1940<br /> | George Beadle and Edward Tatum demonstrated the existence of a precise relationship between genes and proteins. In the course of their experiments connecting genetics with biochemistry, they switched from the genetics mainstay Drosophila to a more appropriate model organism, the fungus Neurospora; the construction and exploitation of new model organisms would become a recurring theme in the development of molecular biology.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1944<br /> | Oswald Avery, working at the Rockefeller Institute of New York, demonstrated that genes are made up of DNA.<br /> <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1952<br /> | Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase confirmed that the genetic material of the bacteriophage, the virus which infects bacteria, is made up of DNA.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1953<br /> | James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helical structure of the DNA molecule.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1960<br /> | Rene Dubos works on antimicrobial agents and environmental protection F. M. Burnet and Peter B. Medawar receive Nobel Prize for the discovery of acquired immunological tolerance.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1960<br /> | "Ames Test" to screen for mutagens developed by Bruce Ames.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1961<br /> | Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod hypothesized the existence of an intermediary between DNA and its protein products, which they called messenger RNA.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1961-1965<br /> | The relationship between the information contained in DNA and the structure of proteins was determined: there is a genetic code, which creates a correspondence between the succession of nucleotides in the DNA sequence and a series of amino acids in proteins. Monod and Jacob also demonstrated how certain specific proteins, called regulative proteins, latch onto DNA at the edges of the genes and control the transcription of these genes into messenger RNA; they direct the "expression" of the genes.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1973<br /> | Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, using plasmids, are the first to clone DNA. <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1976<br /> | Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus discover the cancer-causing genes, called oncogenes, and find that such genes are in normal tissues.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1978<br /> | Daniel Nathans, H.O. Smith and Werner Arber receive Nobel Prize for using restriction enzymes to map viral genomes.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1982<br /> | Stanley Prusiner isolates a protein from a slow disease infection and suggests that it might direct its own replication. He suggests the agent be termed a prion. <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983<br /> | Luc Montagnier of France and Robert Gallo of the United States independently isolate and characterize the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) the cause of AIDS.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983<br /> | Kary Mullis invents the polymerase chain reaction. <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983<br /> | Barbara McClintock receives the Nobel Prize for discovery of mobile genetic elements.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1994<br /> | The Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered food for human consumption, a slower ripening tomato. <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1995<br /> | The Food and Drug Administration approves the first protease inhibitor, a major weapon against the progression of AIDS. <br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1996<br /> | Peter C. Doherty and Rolf M. Zindernagel receives Nobel Prize for the discovery of how the immune system recognizes virus-infected cells.<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1997<br /> | The first complete nucleotide sequence of all of the chromosomes of eukaryote is reported (yeast).<br /> |- valign="TOP"<br /> | align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1999<br /> | Forrest Doolittle proposes that evolution proceeded through horizontal gene between the three domains. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> :*A. Darbre, Introduction to Practical Molecular Biology (1988).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:biology]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=544237 Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution 2008-10-28T03:56:22Z

<p>ScottA: minor edits</p> <hr /> <div>The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Refutations==<br /> <br /> Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.<br /> <br /> 1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.<br /> <br /> 2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.<br /> <br /> 3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).<br /> <br /> 4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.<br /> <br /> 5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.<br /> <br /> 6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.<br /> <br /> 7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.<br /> <br /> 9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.<br /> <br /> 10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.<br /> <br /> 11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.<br /> <br /> I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.<br /> :# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.<br /> :# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.<br /> :# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}<br /> :# No comment. <br /> :# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.<br /> :# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.<br /> :# As for No. 1.<br /> :# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?<br /> :# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.<br /> :# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.<br /> :# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!<br /> <br /> Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /> Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.<br /> <br /> I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.<br /> <br /> 1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).<br /> <br /> 2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science). <br /> <br /> 3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.<br /> <br /> 4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.<br /> <br /> 5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA<br /> b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA<br /> c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.<br /> <br /> The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.<br /> <br /> 6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.<br /> <br /> 7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.<br /> <br /> 9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)<br /> <br /> 10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)<br /> <br /> And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."<br /> <br /> : The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.<br /> <br /> : It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples. <br /> <br /> ::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.<br /> <br /> ::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.<br /> <br /> ::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.<br /> <br /> ::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).<br /> <br /> ::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.<br /> <br /> ::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Responding to Thinker...<br /> <br /> "''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.<br /> <br /> "''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.<br /> <br /> "''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.<br /> <br /> "''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.<br /> <br /> "''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.<br /> <br /> Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?<br /> <br /> "''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.<br /> <br /> "''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.<br /> <br /> "''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.<br /> <br /> "''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}<br /> <br /> "''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.<br /> <br /> "''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].<br /> <br /> "''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.<br /> <br /> "''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.<br /> <br /> "''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.<br /> <br /> "''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.<br /> <br /> "''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.<br /> <br /> ::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:<br /> ::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.<br /> <br /> ::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.<br /> <br /> ::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.<br /> <br /> ::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty. <br /> <br /> ::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.<br /> :: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.<br /> :: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.<br /> :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Bat counterexample ==<br /> <br /> Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."<br /> 1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.<br /> 2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven. <br /> 3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion explained ==<br /> <br /> "Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.<br /> <br /> :And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> == Some Comments ==<br /> <br /> Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.<br /> <br /> : As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.<br /> <br /> :::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?<br /> <br /> : Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:<br /> :::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.<br /> :::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.<br /> :::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.<br /> :::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness (2) ==<br /> <br /> The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:<br /> :*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.<br /> :*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality. <br /> :*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'. <br /> :*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).<br /> :*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.<br /> :*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.<br /> ::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.<br /> ::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. <br /> ::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.<br /> ::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.<br /> ::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.<br /> ::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.<br /> ::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.<br /> ::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.<br /> ::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.<br /> ::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.<br /> ::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].<br /> ::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.<br /> ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Removed "Statistical Approach" ==<br /> <br /> It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "The foliage existed before man does" ==<br /> <br /> But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Beauty ==<br /> <br /> The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.<br /> <br /> So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.<br /> <br /> However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?<br /> <br /> Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)<br /> <br /> However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)<br /> <br /> Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.<br /> <br /> ::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?<br /> <br /> '''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.<br /> <br /> As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.<br /> : Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.<br /> <br /> :: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)<br /> :::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:<br /> :::::H3303<br /> :::::יפה<br /> :::::yâpheh<br /> :::::yaw-feh'<br /> :::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.<br /> :::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):<br /> :::::H3302<br /> :::::יפה<br /> :::::yâphâh<br /> :::::yaw-faw'<br /> :::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.<br /> :::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Sarfati reference ==<br /> <br /> The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Chromosome example==<br /> <br /> The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=544235 Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution 2008-10-28T03:53:01Z

<p>ScottA: chromosome mutations</p> <hr /> <div>The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Refutations==<br /> <br /> Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.<br /> <br /> 1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.<br /> <br /> 2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.<br /> <br /> 3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).<br /> <br /> 4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.<br /> <br /> 5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.<br /> <br /> 6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.<br /> <br /> 7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.<br /> <br /> 9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.<br /> <br /> 10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.<br /> <br /> 11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.<br /> <br /> I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.<br /> :# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.<br /> :# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.<br /> :# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}<br /> :# No comment. <br /> :# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.<br /> :# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.<br /> :# As for No. 1.<br /> :# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?<br /> :# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.<br /> :# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.<br /> :# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!<br /> <br /> Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /> Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.<br /> <br /> I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.<br /> <br /> 1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).<br /> <br /> 2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science). <br /> <br /> 3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.<br /> <br /> 4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.<br /> <br /> 5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA<br /> b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA<br /> c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.<br /> <br /> The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.<br /> <br /> 6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.<br /> <br /> 7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.<br /> <br /> 9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)<br /> <br /> 10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)<br /> <br /> And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."<br /> <br /> : The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.<br /> <br /> : It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples. <br /> <br /> ::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.<br /> <br /> ::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.<br /> <br /> ::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.<br /> <br /> ::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).<br /> <br /> ::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.<br /> <br /> ::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Responding to Thinker...<br /> <br /> "''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.<br /> <br /> "''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.<br /> <br /> "''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.<br /> <br /> "''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.<br /> <br /> "''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.<br /> <br /> Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?<br /> <br /> "''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.<br /> <br /> "''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.<br /> <br /> "''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.<br /> <br /> "''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}<br /> <br /> "''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.<br /> <br /> "''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].<br /> <br /> "''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.<br /> <br /> "''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.<br /> <br /> "''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.<br /> <br /> "''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.<br /> <br /> "''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.<br /> <br /> ::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:<br /> ::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.<br /> <br /> ::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.<br /> <br /> ::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.<br /> <br /> ::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty. <br /> <br /> ::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.<br /> :: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.<br /> :: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.<br /> :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Bat counterexample ==<br /> <br /> Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."<br /> 1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.<br /> 2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven. <br /> 3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion explained ==<br /> <br /> "Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.<br /> <br /> :And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> == Some Comments ==<br /> <br /> Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.<br /> <br /> : As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.<br /> <br /> :::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?<br /> <br /> : Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:<br /> :::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.<br /> :::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.<br /> :::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.<br /> :::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness (2) ==<br /> <br /> The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:<br /> :*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.<br /> :*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality. <br /> :*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'. <br /> :*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).<br /> :*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.<br /> :*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.<br /> ::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.<br /> ::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. <br /> ::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.<br /> ::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.<br /> ::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.<br /> ::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.<br /> ::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.<br /> ::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.<br /> ::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.<br /> ::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.<br /> ::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].<br /> ::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.<br /> ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Removed "Statistical Approach" ==<br /> <br /> It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "The foliage existed before man does" ==<br /> <br /> But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Beauty ==<br /> <br /> The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.<br /> <br /> So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.<br /> <br /> However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?<br /> <br /> Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)<br /> <br /> However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)<br /> <br /> Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.<br /> <br /> ::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?<br /> <br /> '''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.<br /> <br /> As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.<br /> : Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.<br /> <br /> :: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)<br /> :::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:<br /> :::::H3303<br /> :::::יפה<br /> :::::yâpheh<br /> :::::yaw-feh'<br /> :::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.<br /> :::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):<br /> :::::H3302<br /> :::::יפה<br /> :::::yâphâh<br /> :::::yaw-faw'<br /> :::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.<br /> :::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Sarfati reference ==<br /> <br /> The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Chromosome example==<br /> <br /> The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, aside from the Corry's example. I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most...especially in the larger mammals (humans included) cause serious problems. However plants tend to make better use of the kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=544218 Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution 2008-10-28T03:13:54Z

<p>ScottA: forgot sig/timestamp</p> <hr /> <div>The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Refutations==<br /> <br /> Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.<br /> <br /> 1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.<br /> <br /> 2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.<br /> <br /> 3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).<br /> <br /> 4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.<br /> <br /> 5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.<br /> <br /> 6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.<br /> <br /> 7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.<br /> <br /> 9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.<br /> <br /> 10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.<br /> <br /> 11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.<br /> <br /> I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.<br /> :# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.<br /> :# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.<br /> :# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}<br /> :# No comment. <br /> :# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.<br /> :# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.<br /> :# As for No. 1.<br /> :# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?<br /> :# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.<br /> :# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.<br /> :# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!<br /> <br /> Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /> Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.<br /> <br /> I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.<br /> <br /> 1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).<br /> <br /> 2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science). <br /> <br /> 3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.<br /> <br /> 4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.<br /> <br /> 5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA<br /> b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA<br /> c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.<br /> <br /> The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.<br /> <br /> 6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.<br /> <br /> 7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.<br /> <br /> 9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)<br /> <br /> 10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)<br /> <br /> And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."<br /> <br /> : The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.<br /> <br /> : It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples. <br /> <br /> ::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.<br /> <br /> ::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.<br /> <br /> ::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.<br /> <br /> ::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).<br /> <br /> ::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.<br /> <br /> ::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Responding to Thinker...<br /> <br /> "''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.<br /> <br /> "''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.<br /> <br /> "''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.<br /> <br /> "''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.<br /> <br /> "''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.<br /> <br /> Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?<br /> <br /> "''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.<br /> <br /> "''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.<br /> <br /> "''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.<br /> <br /> "''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}<br /> <br /> "''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.<br /> <br /> "''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].<br /> <br /> "''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.<br /> <br /> "''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.<br /> <br /> "''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.<br /> <br /> "''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.<br /> <br /> "''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.<br /> <br /> ::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:<br /> ::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.<br /> <br /> ::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.<br /> <br /> ::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.<br /> <br /> ::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty. <br /> <br /> ::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.<br /> :: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.<br /> :: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.<br /> :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Bat counterexample ==<br /> <br /> Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."<br /> 1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.<br /> 2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven. <br /> 3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion explained ==<br /> <br /> "Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.<br /> <br /> :And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> == Some Comments ==<br /> <br /> Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.<br /> <br /> : As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.<br /> <br /> :::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?<br /> <br /> : Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:<br /> :::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.<br /> :::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.<br /> :::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.<br /> :::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness (2) ==<br /> <br /> The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:<br /> :*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.<br /> :*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality. <br /> :*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'. <br /> :*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).<br /> :*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.<br /> :*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.<br /> ::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.<br /> ::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. <br /> ::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.<br /> ::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.<br /> ::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.<br /> ::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.<br /> ::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.<br /> ::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.<br /> ::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.<br /> ::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.<br /> ::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].<br /> ::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.<br /> ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Removed "Statistical Approach" ==<br /> <br /> It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "The foliage existed before man does" ==<br /> <br /> But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Beauty ==<br /> <br /> The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.<br /> <br /> So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.<br /> <br /> However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?<br /> <br /> Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)<br /> <br /> However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)<br /> <br /> Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.<br /> <br /> ::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?<br /> <br /> '''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.<br /> <br /> As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.<br /> : Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.<br /> <br /> :: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Sarfati reference ==<br /> <br /> The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Chromosome example==<br /> <br /> The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=544217 Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution 2008-10-28T03:10:05Z

<p>ScottA: re: the chromosome example</p> <hr /> <div>The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Refutations==<br /> <br /> Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.<br /> <br /> 1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.<br /> <br /> 2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.<br /> <br /> 3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).<br /> <br /> 4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.<br /> <br /> 5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.<br /> <br /> 6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.<br /> <br /> 7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.<br /> <br /> 9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.<br /> <br /> 10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.<br /> <br /> 11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.<br /> <br /> I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.<br /> :# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.<br /> :# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.<br /> :# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}<br /> :# No comment. <br /> :# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.<br /> :# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.<br /> :# As for No. 1.<br /> :# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?<br /> :# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.<br /> :# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.<br /> :# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!<br /> <br /> Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /> Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.<br /> <br /> I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.<br /> <br /> 1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).<br /> <br /> 2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science). <br /> <br /> 3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.<br /> <br /> 4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.<br /> <br /> 5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA<br /> b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA<br /> c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.<br /> <br /> The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.<br /> <br /> 6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.<br /> <br /> 7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.<br /> <br /> 9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)<br /> <br /> 10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)<br /> <br /> And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."<br /> <br /> : The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.<br /> <br /> : It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples. <br /> <br /> ::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.<br /> <br /> ::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.<br /> <br /> ::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.<br /> <br /> ::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).<br /> <br /> ::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.<br /> <br /> ::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Responding to Thinker...<br /> <br /> "''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.<br /> <br /> "''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.<br /> <br /> "''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.<br /> <br /> "''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.<br /> <br /> "''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.<br /> <br /> Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?<br /> <br /> "''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.<br /> <br /> "''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.<br /> <br /> "''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.<br /> <br /> "''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}<br /> <br /> "''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.<br /> <br /> "''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].<br /> <br /> "''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.<br /> <br /> "''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.<br /> <br /> "''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.<br /> <br /> "''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.<br /> <br /> "''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.<br /> <br /> ::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:<br /> ::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.<br /> <br /> ::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.<br /> <br /> ::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.<br /> <br /> ::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty. <br /> <br /> ::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.<br /> :: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.<br /> :: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.<br /> :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Bat counterexample ==<br /> <br /> Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."<br /> 1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.<br /> 2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven. <br /> 3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion explained ==<br /> <br /> "Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.<br /> <br /> :And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> == Some Comments ==<br /> <br /> Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.<br /> <br /> : As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.<br /> <br /> :::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?<br /> <br /> : Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:<br /> :::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.<br /> :::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.<br /> :::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.<br /> :::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness (2) ==<br /> <br /> The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:<br /> :*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.<br /> :*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality. <br /> :*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'. <br /> :*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).<br /> :*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.<br /> :*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.<br /> ::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.<br /> ::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. <br /> ::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.<br /> ::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.<br /> ::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.<br /> ::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.<br /> ::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.<br /> ::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.<br /> ::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.<br /> ::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.<br /> ::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].<br /> ::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.<br /> ::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Removed "Statistical Approach" ==<br /> <br /> It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "The foliage existed before man does" ==<br /> <br /> But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Beauty ==<br /> <br /> The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.<br /> <br /> So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.<br /> <br /> However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?<br /> <br /> Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)<br /> <br /> However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)<br /> <br /> Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.<br /> <br /> ::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?<br /> <br /> '''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.<br /> <br /> As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.<br /> : Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.<br /> <br /> :: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Sarfati reference ==<br /> <br /> The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Chromosome example==<br /> <br /> The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rosemary%27s_baby&diff=544059 Rosemary's baby 2008-10-27T23:55:30Z

<p>ScottA: New page: '''''Rosemary's Baby''''' is a psychological-horror movie released in 1968 about a woman(Rosemary) who becomes concerned that an organization of witches is after her un-born child. Rosema...</p> <hr /> <div>'''''Rosemary's Baby''''' is a psychological-horror movie released in 1968 about a woman(Rosemary) who becomes concerned that an organization of witches is after her un-born child.<br /> <br /> Rosemary is played by Mia Farrow and is cast as the heroin or rather, victim in the movie.<br /> <br /> '''''Rosemary's baby''''' actress Ruth Gordon won an Oscar in 1969 for best actress in a supporting roll. The movie, as well as several of the actors were also nominated and won several other rewards, including a Golden Globe, which was also awarded to Ruth Gordon.<br /> <br /> The movie was based on a book by the same title that was published in 1987. The book has a sequel titled '''''Son of Rosemary'''''<br /> <br /> The movie is rated R for Adult themes, sexual content, and nudity.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Catacomb&diff=544022 Catacomb 2008-10-27T23:04:33Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''catacomb''' is an underground [[cemetery]] consisting of a gallery with recesses for [[tomb]]s. <ref> [Oxford English Dictionary] </ref> <br /> <br /> Catacombs are present in many [[city|cities]] around the [[world]]. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Roman Catacombs ==<br /> The catacombs in [[Rome]] were [[underground]] [[tunnel]]s and [[burial]] galleries for [[Christian]] [[martyr]]s in ancient Rome. Christians would recognize the contributions of these martyrs by attending ceremonies in the catacombs on the anniversaries of the [[death]]s of the martyrs.<br /> [[category:Christian History]]<br /> <br /> == French Catacombs ==<br /> The Catacombs in Paris, France are a series of tunnels converted into a mass grave during the 18th century in order to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the cemeteries in the city. The monks responsible for cleaning and arranging the remains organized them into piles and patterns ranging from Xs to crosses. There are estimated to be the remains of 5 to 6 million people in the Parisian catacombs.<ref>The Catacombs of Paris[http://www.showcaves.com/english/fr/misc/Catacombs.html]</ref> The tunnels are a popular tourist spot today, however there are sometimes issues with tourists stealing a bone or two as a souvenir.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Catacomb&diff=544020 Catacomb 2008-10-27T23:03:15Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''catacomb''' is an underground [[cemetery]] consisting of a gallery with recesses for [[tomb]]s. <ref> [Oxford English Dictionary] </ref> <br /> <br /> Catacombs are present in many [[city|cities]] around the [[world]]. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Roman Catacombs ==<br /> The catacombs in [[Rome]] were [[underground]] [[tunnel]]s and [[burial]] galleries for [[Christian]] [[martyr]]s in ancient Rome. Christians would recognize the contributions of these martyrs by attending ceremonies in the catacombs on the anniversaries of the [[death]]s of the martyrs.<br /> [[category:Christian History]]<br /> <br /> == French Catacombs ==<br /> The Catacombs in Paris, France are a series of tunnels converted into a mass grave during the 18th century in order to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the cemeteries in the city. The monks responsible for cleaning and arranging the remains organized them into piles and patterns ranging from Xs to crosses. There are estimated to be the remains of 5 to 6 million people in the Parisian catacombs.<ref>http://www.showcaves.com/english/fr/misc/Catacombs.html</ref> The tunnels are a popular tourist spot today, however there are sometimes issues with tourists stealing a bone or two as a souvenir.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Catacomb&diff=544019 Catacomb 2008-10-27T23:02:26Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''catacomb''' is an underground [[cemetery]] consisting of a gallery with recesses for [[tomb]]s. <ref> [Oxford English Dictionary] </ref> <br /> <br /> Catacombs are present in many [[city|cities]] around the [[world]]. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Roman Catacombs ==<br /> The catacombs in [[Rome]] were [[underground]] [[tunnel]]s and [[burial]] galleries for [[Christian]] [[martyr]]s in ancient Rome. Christians would recognize the contributions of these martyrs by attending ceremonies in the catacombs on the anniversaries of the [[death]]s of the martyrs.<br /> [[category:Christian History]]<br /> <br /> == French Catacombs ==<br /> The Catacombs in Paris, France are a series of tunnels converted into a mass grave during the 18th century in order to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the cemeteries in the city. The monks responsible for cleaning and arranging the remains organized them into piles and patterns ranging from Xs to crosses. There are estimated to be the remains of 5 to 6 million people in the Parisian catacombs.<ref>http://www.showcaves.com/english/fr/misc/Catacombs.html The Catacombs of Paris</ref> The tunnels are a popular tourist spot today, however there are sometimes issues with tourists stealing a bone or two as a souvenir.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Catacomb&diff=544016 Catacomb 2008-10-27T22:56:43Z

<p>ScottA: minor edit</p> <hr /> <div>A '''catacomb''' is an underground [[cemetery]] consisting of a gallery with recesses for [[tomb]]s. <ref> [Oxford English Dictionary] </ref> <br /> <br /> Catacombs are present in many [[city|cities]] around the [[world]]. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Roman Catacombs ==<br /> The catacombs in [[Rome]] were [[underground]] [[tunnel]]s and [[burial]] galleries for [[Christian]] [[martyr]]s in ancient Rome. Christians would recognize the contributions of these martyrs by attending ceremonies in the catacombs on the anniversaries of the [[death]]s of the martyrs.<br /> [[category:Christian History]]<br /> <br /> == French Catacombs ==<br /> The Catacombs in Paris, France are a series of tunnels converted into a mass grave during the 18th century in order to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the cemeteries in the city. The monks responsible for cleaning and arranging the remains organized them into piles and patterns ranging from Xs to crosses. There are estimated to be the remains of 5 to 6 million people in the Parisian catacombs. The tunnels are a popular tourist spot today, however there are sometimes issues with tourists stealing a bone or two as a souvenir.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Catacomb&diff=544013 Catacomb 2008-10-27T22:51:44Z

<p>ScottA: Added section French catacombs</p> <hr /> <div>A '''catacomb''' is an underground [[cemetery]] consisting of a gallery with recesses for [[tomb]]s. <ref> [Oxford English Dictionary] </ref> <br /> <br /> Catacombs are present in many [[city|cities]] around the [[world]]. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Roman Catacombs ==<br /> The catacombs in [[Rome]] were [[underground]] [[tunnel]]s and [[burial]] galleries for [[Christian]] [[martyr]]s in ancient Rome. Christians would recognize the contributions of these martyrs by attending ceremonies in the catacombs on the anniversaries of the [[death]]s of the martyrs.<br /> [[category:Christian History]]<br /> <br /> == French Catacombs ==<br /> The Catacombs in Paris, France are a series of tunnels converted into a mass grave during the 18th century in order to alleviate the problem of overcrowding in the cemeteries in the city. The Monks responsible for cleaning and arranging the remains organized them into piles and patterns ranging from Xs to crosses. There are estimated to be the remains of 5 to 6 million people in the Parisian catacombs. The tunnels are a popular tourist spot today, however there are sometimes issues with tourists stealing a bone or two as a souvenir.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=543552 Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution 2008-10-27T01:10:49Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Refutations==<br /> <br /> Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.<br /> <br /> 1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.<br /> <br /> 2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.<br /> <br /> 3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).<br /> <br /> 4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.<br /> <br /> 5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.<br /> <br /> 6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.<br /> <br /> 7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.<br /> <br /> 9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.<br /> <br /> 10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.<br /> <br /> 11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.<br /> <br /> I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.<br /> :# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.<br /> :# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.<br /> :# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}<br /> :# No comment. <br /> :# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.<br /> :# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.<br /> :# As for No. 1.<br /> :# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?<br /> :# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.<br /> :# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.<br /> :# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!<br /> <br /> Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /> Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.<br /> <br /> I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.<br /> <br /> 1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).<br /> <br /> 2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science). <br /> <br /> 3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.<br /> <br /> 4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.<br /> <br /> 5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA<br /> b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA<br /> c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.<br /> <br /> The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.<br /> <br /> 6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.<br /> <br /> 7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)<br /> <br /> 8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.<br /> <br /> 9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)<br /> <br /> 10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)<br /> <br /> And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."<br /> <br /> : The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.<br /> <br /> : It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples. <br /> <br /> ::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.<br /> <br /> ::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.<br /> <br /> ::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.<br /> <br /> ::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).<br /> <br /> ::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.<br /> <br /> ::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Responding to Thinker...<br /> <br /> "''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.<br /> <br /> "''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.<br /> <br /> "''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.<br /> <br /> "''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.<br /> <br /> "''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.<br /> <br /> Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?<br /> <br /> "''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.<br /> <br /> "''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.<br /> <br /> "''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.<br /> <br /> "''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}<br /> <br /> "''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.<br /> <br /> "''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].<br /> <br /> "''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.<br /> <br /> "''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.<br /> <br /> "''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.<br /> <br /> "''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.<br /> <br /> "''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.<br /> <br /> ::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:<br /> ::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.<br /> <br /> ::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.<br /> <br /> ::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.<br /> <br /> And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Bat counterexample ==<br /> <br /> Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion explained ==<br /> <br /> "Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.<br /> <br /> :And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> == Some Comments ==<br /> <br /> Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.<br /> <br /> : As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.<br /> <br /> :::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?<br /> <br /> : Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:<br /> :::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.<br /> :::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.<br /> :::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.<br /> :::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Consciousness ==<br /> <br /> The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:<br /> :*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.<br /> :*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality. <br /> :*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'. <br /> :*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).<br /> :*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.<br /> :*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.<br /> :Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.<br /> :Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. <br /> :Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.<br /> :Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> == Removed "Statistical Approach" ==<br /> <br /> It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == "The foliage existed before man does" ==<br /> <br /> But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin&diff=540515 Talk:Charles Darwin 2008-10-22T02:29:01Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1|/Archive 1]]<br /> <br /> It should be noted that this attitude was very much in line with the thinking of Darwin's time, and although his theory of evolution has withstood considerable examination over more than a century, he was not infallible.<br /> <br /> == Darwin: did he hold to weak atheism or agnosticism and did he lie about being an agnostic? ==<br /> <br /> I believe that Darwin was a "[[Weak Atheism|weak atheist]]" and he was a proponent of what we would call [[scientism]]. I don't think that Darwin lied about being an "agnostic". <br /> <br /> I cite the following:<br /> <br /> http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548839/k.2A55/Is_Darwinism_Atheistic_an_Examination_of_the_Beliefs_and_Practices_of_Charles_Darwin.htm<br /> <br /> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877<br /> <br /> Also, consider these:<br /> <br /> http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm<br /> <br /> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rational-atheism (scientism)<br /> <br /> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUaveling.htm (Aveling said Darwin was an atheist. He met with Darwin.).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Also, consider this:<br /> <br /> * Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent-that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.<br /> The writings of Charles Darwin on the web<br /> by John van Wyhe<br /> F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905.<br /> <br /> This might offer a little help in that it shows at some point Darwin abandoned theism altogether:<br /> <br /> http://www.springerlink.com/content/m20576222124043j/<br /> <br /> <br /> As I stated before it does seem as if Darwin was a weak atheist and believer in scientism and not the idea that the issue of God was forever insoluble which I believe modern agnostics hold to. I think the confusion comes in because Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) who coined the term agnostic did not mean that the question of God was forever unknowable if I am not mistaken (but I certain could be in that I have not researched it in depth) Please see: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html. <br /> <br /> Any thoughts on the above? <br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Darwin's Death==<br /> The date of death listed on this article is off by a year. It should be 1882 not 1883. I would gladly fix said typo myself but it appears the article is locked.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin&diff=540514 Talk:Charles Darwin 2008-10-22T02:27:19Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1|/Archive 1]]<br /> <br /> It should be noted that this attitude was very much in line with the thinking of Darwin's time, and although his theory of evolution has withstood considerable examination over more than a century, he was not infallible.<br /> <br /> == Darwin: did he hold to weak atheism or agnosticism and did he lie about being an agnostic? ==<br /> <br /> I believe that Darwin was a "[[Weak Atheism|weak atheist]]" and he was a proponent of what we would call [[scientism]]. I don't think that Darwin lied about being an "agnostic". <br /> <br /> I cite the following:<br /> <br /> http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548839/k.2A55/Is_Darwinism_Atheistic_an_Examination_of_the_Beliefs_and_Practices_of_Charles_Darwin.htm<br /> <br /> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877<br /> <br /> Also, consider these:<br /> <br /> http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm<br /> <br /> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rational-atheism (scientism)<br /> <br /> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUaveling.htm (Aveling said Darwin was an atheist. He met with Darwin.).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Also, consider this:<br /> <br /> * Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent-that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.<br /> The writings of Charles Darwin on the web<br /> by John van Wyhe<br /> F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905.<br /> <br /> This might offer a little help in that it shows at some point Darwin abandoned theism altogether:<br /> <br /> http://www.springerlink.com/content/m20576222124043j/<br /> <br /> <br /> As I stated before it does seem as if Darwin was a weak atheist and believer in scientism and not the idea that the issue of God was forever insoluble which I believe modern agnostics hold to. I think the confusion comes in because Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) who coined the term agnostic did not mean that the question of God was forever unknowable if I am not mistaken (but I certain could be in that I have not researched it in depth) Please see: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html. <br /> <br /> Any thoughts on the above? <br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Darwin's Death==<br /> The date of death listed on this article is off by a year. It should be 1882 not 1883. I would gladly fix said typo myself but it appears the article is locked.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative/Gentlemen-if-you-could-be-more-sensible-in-the-future-it-would-be-appreciated&diff=540409 User talk:Conservative/Gentlemen-if-you-could-be-more-sensible-in-the-future-it-would-be-appreciated 2008-10-22T00:30:13Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>Re: "I do wish to inform you that Charles Darwin is dead".<br /> <br /> To avoid further confusion in this regard, perhaps the [[Charles Darwin|article]] about Mr Darwin, which is currently locked against editing, could be modified to clarify this point, since the "General Biography" stops in 1871, eleven or twelve years prior to Mr Darwin's alleged death.<br /> <br /> There also seems to be some confusion on this point, too, since Conservapedia lists a date of death of April 19, 1883, while [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Wikipedia] and numerous other sources list the date of Charles Darwin's death as April 19, 1882. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Im confused. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia and not a personal blog to be used in a personal squable with another group of people, and yet things like this keep on popping up. Also, Darwin's death was in 1882 CP has it wrong.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 20:30, 21 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative/Gentlemen-if-you-could-be-more-sensible-in-the-future-it-would-be-appreciated&diff=540408 User talk:Conservative/Gentlemen-if-you-could-be-more-sensible-in-the-future-it-would-be-appreciated 2008-10-22T00:29:59Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>Re: "I do wish to inform you that Charles Darwin is dead".<br /> <br /> To avoid further confusion in this regard, perhaps the [[Charles Darwin|article]] about Mr Darwin, which is currently locked against editing, could be modified to clarify this point, since the "General Biography" stops in 1871, eleven or twelve years prior to Mr Darwin's alleged death.<br /> <br /> There also seems to be some confusion on this point, too, since Conservapedia lists a date of death of April 19, 1883, while [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Wikipedia] and numerous other sources list the date of Charles Darwin's death as April 19, 1882. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Im confused. I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia and not a personal blog to be used in a personal squable with another group of people, and yet things like this keep on popping up. Also, Darwin's death was in 1882 CP has it wrong.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Wilson_Reagan&diff=536544 Ronald Wilson Reagan 2008-10-15T02:10:48Z

<p>ScottA: /* Quotes */ removed repeated quote</p> <hr /> <div>{{President<br /> |image=Aaag.jpg<br /> |seq=40<br /> |term_start=January 20, 1981<br /> |term_end=January 20, 1989<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref><br /> |party=Republican<br /> |vp=George H. W. Bush<br /> |previous=Jimmy Carter<br /> |next=George H. W. Bush<br /> |birth_date=February 6, 1911<br /> |birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA<br /> |death_date=June 5, 2004<br /> |death_place=Bel Air, California<br /> |spouse=Jane Wyman<br /> |spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan<br /> |religion=Presbyterian<br /> }}<br /> '''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), [[United States]] President and considered by some to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] severing two terms from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref><br /> <br /> In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. [[Gorbachev]], tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic [[Speaker of the House]], [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.<br /> <br /> ==Early Life==<br /> Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of [[athletics]] and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during [[World War II]], but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of War Bonds.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref><br /> <br /> Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the [[Screen Actors Guild]]. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement." Reagan met his second wife, actress [[Nancy Davis]], when she came to Reagan for help as she was concerned because another actress with the same name ended up on the "black list."<ref> [http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F70F1FF9395C17728DDDAF0A94D8415B8084F1D3 The Biggest Role of Nancy's Life]</ref><ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref><br /> <br /> ==Governor of California==<br /> In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:<br /> <br /> *Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.<br /> <br /> *Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.<br /> <br /> *Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.<br /> <br /> *Opposed the Dos Rios Dam.<br /> <br /> ==Presidency (1981-1989)==<br /> [[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]<br /> In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged [[Gerald Ford]] for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with George Herbert Walker Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election he received 50.75% of the popular vote, beating Jimmy Carter by almost 10%, and also won 90.9% of the electoral vote. Riding his strong showing, the Republicans won enough seats in the United States Senate to take control of that chamber for the first time in decades. The results were a shock as polling had been showing a close contest heading into the day of the election.<br /> <br /> Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).<br /> <br /> In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Margaret Thatcher]] and some assistance from [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the [[Warsaw Pact]]".</ref><br /> <br /> March 30, 1981 there was an unsuccessful assassination attempt on President Reagan at the Washington Hilton Hotel in [[Washington, D.C.]] John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan and injured 3 others. Reagan survived and was able to recover quickly.<br /> <br /> ==Domestic policy==<br /> ===Economy===<br /> [[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]] As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "Reaganomics." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:<br /> <br /> *Reduce the growth of government spending.<br /> *Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.<br /> *Reduce government regulation of the economy.<br /> *Control the money supply to reduce inflation.<br /> <br /> Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high inflation and unemployment when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act, which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref><br /> <br /> ===Supreme Court Appointments===<br /> Ronald Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, President Reagan nominated Superior Court judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the retiring [[Potter Stewart]]. There were some concerns by social conservatives and Pro-Life groups over whether she would overturn [[Roe v. Wade]]. Nevertheless, she was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.<br /> <br /> In 1987, Reagan nominated [[Washington]] circuit judge, former Solicitor General and former acting [[Attorney General]] [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. [[Senate]] [[Liberal]]s attacked Bork as being too [[conservative]]. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]), criticized him, saying,<br /> <br /> ''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref><br /> <br /> On October 23, 1987, the U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. [[Anthony Kennedy]] was then nominated for the seat, where he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.<br /> <br /> ===War on Drugs===<br /> As President, Reagan declared a "war on [[drugs]]", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in [[television]] advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use went from thirty-three percent of high-school seniors in 1980 to twelve percent in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref><br /> <br /> ==Foreign policy==<br /> Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars was spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, technologies were developed from the program that had practical uses in society. For instance lasik eye surgery came about through developments generated by the SDI program.<br /> <br /> While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians believe that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref><br /> [[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]<br /> <br /> Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] by the Soviets on September 1, 1983. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.<br /> <br /> Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref><br /> <br /> ===Soviet Union===<br /> Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative. <br /> [[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]<br /> The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref><br /> The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders. <br /> <br /> A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref><br /> <br /> By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref><br /> <br /> ===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===<br /> [[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy{{fact}}. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.<br /> <br /> The objective of the plan was fourfold:<br /> #Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; <br /> #Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;<br /> #Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; <br /> #Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].<br /> <br /> There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.<br /> <br /> Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref><br /> <br /> The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power{{fact}}. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.<br /> <br /> The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.<br /> <br /> ===Cold War victory===<br /> Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.<br /> <br /> Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref><br /> <br /> [[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref><br /> <br /> *Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref><br /> <br /> ==Post-presidency==<br /> [[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a regenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity. He died at his Bel-Air home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history.<br /> <br /> ==Miscellaneous Facts==<br /> *Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.<br /> *Reagan was the first and only divorced president.<br /> *Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref><br /> *Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office.<br /> *At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.<br /> *The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref><br /> *Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.<br /> *Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans].<br /> *His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.<br /> *After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref><br /> <br /> == Quotes ==<br /> *"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981<br /> *"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br /> *"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981<br /> *"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983<br /> *"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br /> *"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br /> *"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990 <br /> *"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br /> *"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982 <br /> *"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[founding fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973<br /> *"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973<br /> *"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref><br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]<br /> *[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]<br /> *[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.<br /> * Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics<br /> * Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography<br /> * Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001) <br /> * Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).<br /> * Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)<br /> * Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]<br /> * Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)<br /> * Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian<br /> * Garthoff, Raymond. ''Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet relations from Nixon to Reagan'' (1994), by liberal<br /> * Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48. <br /> * Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994). <br /> * Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists<br /> * [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)<br /> * Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy<br /> * Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]<br /> * Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br /> * Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow<br /> * Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia. <br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era<br /> * Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br /> * Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography<br /> * Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian<br /> * Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools<br /> * Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online] <br /> * Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative<br /> * Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980) <br /> * Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.<br /> * Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America<br /> ====notes====<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ===Biographies===<br /> * Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]<br /> * D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]<br /> * Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian<br /> * Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools<br /> <br /> ===Reagan before 1981===<br /> * Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995<br /> * Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897 <br /> * Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73. <br /> * Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.<br /> * DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco <br /> * DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor <br /> * Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' 1981. <br /> * Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981. <br /> * Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. 1981. Detailed journalism.<br /> * Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001) <br /> * Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984). <br /> * Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863 <br /> <br /> <br /> ===Politics and Domestic issues ===<br /> * Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987) <br /> * Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988<br /> * Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics<br /> * Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.<br /> * Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987. <br /> * Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987. <br /> * Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)<br /> * Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]<br /> * Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]<br /> * Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]<br /> * Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda. <br /> * Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985<br /> * Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]<br /> * Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984<br /> * Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)<br /> * Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991. <br /> * Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986. <br /> * Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985. <br /> * Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]<br /> * Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief<br /> * Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48. <br /> * Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994. <br /> * Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]<br /> * Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists<br /> * Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]<br /> * Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]<br /> * Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]<br /> * Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990. <br /> * Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology<br /> * Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.<br /> * Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition] <br /> * Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]<br /> * Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists<br /> * Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online] <br /> * Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.<br /> <br /> ===Foreign affairs===<br /> * Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989. <br /> * Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992. <br /> * Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989. <br /> * Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993<br /> * Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. <br /> * Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR. <br /> * Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)<br /> * Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.<br /> * Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.<br /> * Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]<br /> * Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars<br /> * Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]<br /> * [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)<br /> * Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy<br /> * Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]<br /> * LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)<br /> * Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]<br /> * Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]<br /> * Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders<br /> * Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993) <br /> * Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)<br /> * Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]<br /> * Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]<br /> * Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp. <br /> * Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004. <br /> <br /> ===Rhetoric, media and values===<br /> * Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401 <br /> * Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999) <br /> * Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]<br /> * Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas<br /> * Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]<br /> * FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.<br /> * Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414. <br /> * Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.<br /> * Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press<br /> * Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. <br /> * Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]<br /> * Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+. <br /> * Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.<br /> * Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991. <br /> * Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302<br /> * Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)<br /> * Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88. <br /> * Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65. <br /> * Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches<br /> * Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter<br /> * Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]<br /> * Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]<br /> * Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function. <br /> * Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989 <br /> * Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]<br /> * Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980) <br /> * Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.<br /> * Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition] <br /> * Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)<br /> <br /> ===Primary sources===<br /> * [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables<br /> * Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography<br /> * Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968. <br /> * Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984. <br /> * Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91. <br /> * Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]<br /> * Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s<br /> * Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)<br /> * Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989. <br /> * Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988. <br /> <br /> ====Primary sources by Reagan aides====<br /> * Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990) <br /> * Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82<br /> * Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.<br /> * Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992. <br /> * Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.<br /> * Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff<br /> * Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89<br /> * Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter<br /> * Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stcokman was Budget Director in 1981-82<br /> * Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993. <br /> * Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992. <br /> * Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993. <br /> * Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary<br /> ===Government documents===<br /> * Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues<br /> * U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']<br /> *[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]<br /> *[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by [[Alfred Regnery]]<br /> *[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]<br /> *[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]<br /> *[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]<br /> *[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]<br /> *[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]<br /> *[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.<br /> *[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981<br /> *[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Ronald Reagan]]<br /> {{USPresidents}}<br /> [[Category:California Governors]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Governors]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Decimate&diff=534787 Decimate 2008-10-12T15:20:59Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>Decimate is word often used in the English language to mean 'to utterly destroy.' <br /> <br /> While this use is often accepted, a much more precise definition would be 'to destroy, remove, or punish 1/10th.'</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Decimate&diff=534786 Decimate 2008-10-12T15:20:14Z

<p>ScottA: New page: Decimate is word often used in the English language to mean to utterly destroy. While this use is often accepted, a much more precise definition would be to destroy, remove, or punish 1/...</p> <hr /> <div>Decimate is word often used in the English language to mean to utterly destroy. <br /> <br /> While this use is often accepted, a much more precise definition would be to destroy, remove, or punish 1/10th.</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soil&diff=532549 Soil 2008-10-09T00:34:36Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Soil''' is typically used to refer [[fertile]] dirt or [[earth]]. It is often composed of decaying plant and/or animal matter, particles of various minerals or rocks, and some amount of water in the form of moisture.<br /> <br /> Soil is separated into 4 layers called "Horizons". <br /> <br /> The top layer is known as the "Organic layer". It consists of decomposing or decomposed organic material. Mostly decomposed plant material such as dead leaves.<br /> <br /> The second layer is known as the "Top Soil". This is a largely mineral soil developed from the parent materials. Its dark color comes from leaching off of the organic layer.<br /> <br /> The third layer is known as the "Sub soil". This layer is mostly mineral soil with litter organic components. This soil is much more dense compared to the top soil making it more difficult for plant roots to extend downward. <br /> <br /> The fourth layer is the unconsolidated material that was once the parent material. Due to it being so far removed from most biological activity and weathering, this layer retains most of the characteristics of the parent material.<br /> <br /> Parental material, is the material from which the soil originated. This can range from bedrock, sand, till, or any combination of these materials depending on the region.<br /> [[category:geology]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=An_American_Carol&diff=532522 An American Carol 2008-10-09T00:12:04Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Anamericancarol.jpg|right|thumb]]<br /> '''An American Carol''' is a movie by director David Zucker released on October 3, 2008. It is a rare comedy made in Hollywood by conservatives, for conservatives. It is a gag-filled lampoon of [[liberal]]s about a cynical, Anti-American “Hollywood” documentary filmmaker leading a slapstick campaign to abolish the [[Fourth of July]]. It stars Kevin Farley, brother of the late [[Chris Farley]], as a scruffy Michael Moore parody named Michael Malone. "An American Carol" mixes the narrative of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with Fox News fodder.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/american_carol/2008/10/03/137000.html American Carol' Lampoons the Left] NewsMax, October 3, 2008</ref> Many highly recognized Hollywood actors star in the film including Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Hopper, Jon Voight, Robert Davi, and Leslie Nielsen with Cameo appearances by [[Bill O'Reilly]], James Woods and [[Paris Hilton]]. <br /> <br /> Besides spoofing [[Michael Moore]], 'An American Carol' roasts [[jihad]]ists, [[Rosie O'Donnell]], college professors, [[Neville Chamberlain]], [[Adolf Hitler]], President [[Jimmy Carter]], chanting protesters and the [[ACLU]]. Zucker co-wrote the film with Myrna Sokoloff and Lewis Friedman. Zucker directed the previous hit comedies 'Airplane!', 'The Naked Gun' and 'Scary Movie 3 & 4'.<br /> <br /> ==Zucker’s sense of humor==<br /> In a scene which shows anti-war protesters chant, “Peace now. We don't care how!” as they carry signs that read:<br /> * End Violence — War Is Not the Answer!<br /> * End Disease — Medicine Is Not the Answer!<br /> * It's Too Dark Outside — The Sun Is Not the Answer!<br /> * Overpopulation — Gay Marriage Is the Answer!<br /> <br /> ==Movie Reviews==<br /> The movie is given a 21% rating by rottentomatoes.com, meaning that only 21% of reviewers gave the movie a positive review. Critics give the movie an average rating of 3.3 out of 10.<ref>[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/an_american_carol/?name_order=asc T-meter critics], Rotten Tomatoes</ref> Audiences, however, have a 75% approval rating, with an average rating of 7.3 out of 10.<ref>[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/an_american_carol/reviews_users.php RT Community], Rotten Tomatoes</ref><br /> <br /> ==Liberal Conspiracy==<br /> After a poor opening weekend, Americancarol.com determined that there was widespread ticket fraud due to a liberal ticket takers and theater management conspiracy to make the movie seem like a flop. <br /> <ref>[http://americancarol.com/fraud/ Fraud] American Carol</ref> Those who saw the movie are urged by the people at Americancarol.com to check their tickets and report any incidents that occurred while viewing to fraud@americancarol.com.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <references/><br /> <br /> [[Category:movies]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Do_Atheist_believe_they_have_a_soul%3F&diff=523559 Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul? 2008-09-25T00:44:09Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>A soul is seperate from the body. God has given us an individual soul that departs us when we pass from this life. Do Atheists believe in having a soul?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No. We are material beings. Mind, spirit, soul are functions of the brain. This isn't much of a debate for a atheist. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I can think of a few ways it could be justified, but they would have to be a strange atheist indeed. If you want one, your best bet would be one of the new-age types - they have such a grab-bag, you can probably find one that claims to be an atheist while still being effectively a theist of some description, just not willing to admit it. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> No, I myself do not believe that we have a soul. For me, your consciousness is simply a function of millions of years of chance and random wiring in your brain - picking the good features that made your ancestors more intelligent, leaving the less intelligent ones to set fire to themselves or however stone age man killed himself through his own stupidity. Your ancestors bred, passed on their better intelligence, etc. etc. until one day you were born self-aware. That self-awareness is just the result of random wiring, and when you die, nothing will seperate from your body and go to an afterlife. All that will happen is that all those electrical pulses that accidentally happen to give you self-awareness, along with those that tell your heart to keep beating and your diaphragm to keep pulling at your lungs, will stop firing. Nothing else will change - it'd be just like flicking off a lightswitch.<br /> <br /> I've been asked how I can possibly sleep at night, thinking that my existance is bound to be short and, should I die during my sleep, I simply won't exist anymore. This doesn't trouble me because hey, I won't care that I'm dead, because I'll be dead. Yes, I'd really like to keep living, but once I'm dead it really won't bother me. If I had an aftelife to go to, I'd miss everything I left behind on Earth. So as far as I'm concerned, nothing leaves your body when you die - all of your consciousness is still there, in the same way your contacts stay on your phone after you've turned it off. Except you can't turn a human back on again.<br /> <br /> Yes, it's depressing, but my conscience tells me that it must be so - I can't lie to myself and believe in heaven or a soul. If Christians are right (out of the countless religions on Earth, if Christianity turns out to be the correct religion) then I'm sure an all-forgiving, benevolent God will see that I've led a life free of major sins and have always striven to do what I believe to be right. Why would he punish me for falling for the traps that, by all rights, he put there for me, like all those pesky fossils? [[User:LibAsCanBe|LibAsCanBe]] 18:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Because God isn't obliged to make sense to your thinking. He is the source of morality - he has the right to send you to hell for violating his rules. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 19:11, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Given the definition of a soul from the initial question on this page, I would say no. Atheists do not believe in a God given soul. However if we expand the definition to include any kind of spiritual/non-material component to the body then I think you will find more variance to the answer. As for the above comments, I would have to say that I agree with LibAsCanBe, if God does exist and he is a loving and forgiving God as stated by the majority of the Christian faiths, being an atheist (or any religion) will not matter as long as you have lived a moral life. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 20:44, 24 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shrimp&diff=523348 Shrimp 2008-09-24T17:41:01Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Facebook picture of fish.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Shrimp make good pets, and they get along well with [[Betta fish]], which also make fine pets.]]<br /> <br /> '''Shrimps''' are small decapod crustaceans, often consumed as food, and sometimes kept as pets.<br /> <br /> ===Biblical views on shrimp===<br /> <br /> The Bible<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9;</ref> states that Shrimp are an abomination and should not be consumed as food, by humans. Those who do eat shrimp are considered, by the laws set forth in the bible, as being unclean<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014:9-10&version=9;</ref>.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Crustaceans]]<br /> [[Category:Seafood]]</div>

ScottA https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shrimp&diff=523345 Shrimp 2008-09-24T17:40:28Z

<p>ScottA: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Facebook picture of fish.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Shrimp make good pets, and they get along well with [[Betta fish]], which also make fine pets.]]<br /> <br /> '''Shrimps''' are small decapod crustaceans, often consumed as food, and sometimes kept as pets.<br /> <br /> ===Biblical views on shrimp===<br /> <br /> The Bible<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2011:9-12&version=9;</ref> states that Shrimp are an abomination and should not be consumed as food, by humans. Those who do eat shrimp are considered by the laws set forth in the bible as being unclean<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014:9-10&version=9;</ref>.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Crustaceans]]<br /> [[Category:Seafood]]</div>

ScottA