Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Lynne Cheney

2017-04-30T04:49:46Z

SharonW: Wives of the VPs are not known as First Ladies, but occasionally known as Second Ladies

[[Image:Mrscheney.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Lynne Anne Cheney''' (née '''Vincent''') is the wife of former U.S. vice president [[Dick Cheney]], and was Second Lady of the United States from 2001 through 2009. She has published several books. The Cheneys have two daughters, [[Liz Cheney|Elizabeth]] and Mary.

==Career==
Lynne Cheney served on [[Lockheed Corporation]]'s board of directors from 1994 to 2001, a $120,000 per year post which she gave up shortly before her husband's inauguration.<ref>[http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2001/01/01/daily19.html] Washington Business Journal: VP's wife steps down from Lockheed board</ref> She served on the board's Finance, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees.<ref>[http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5968] Village Voice: USA - Inside Lockheed's $250 Billion Pentagon Connection</ref>

She is the author of the novel ''Sisters''.

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Cheney, Lynn}}
[[Category:American Authors]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Second Ladies]]

Spiro Agnew

2016-03-18T21:43:06Z

SharonW:

{{President
|image=Spiro agnew.jpg
|seq=39
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1969
|term_end=October 10, 1973
|party=Republican
|pres=Richard Nixon
|previous=Hubert Humphrey
|next=Gerald Ford
|birth_date=November 9, 1918
|birth_place=Towson, Maryland
|death_date=September 17, 1996
|death_place=Berlin, Maryland
|spouse=Judy Agnew
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
}}
{{Officeholder
|name=Spiro Agnew
|image=
|party=Republican
|spouse=Judy Agnew
|religion=Episcopalian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=55th
|state=Maryland
|terms=January 25, 1967 – January 7, 1969
|preceded=John Tawes
|former=y
|succeeded=Marvin Mandel
}}
}}
'''Spiro T. Agnew''' (1918 - 1996) was [[Vice President]] under [[Richard Nixon]] from 1969 to 1973. He was Governor of [[Maryland]] (1967-1969) before becoming Nixon's running mate. As governor he was a moderate Republican, supporting civil rights and helping repeal laws against interracial sex. He supported drafting [[Nelson Rockefeller]] for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968, but after Rockefeller failed to enter the race as soon as anticipated, switched his support to Nixon. He took bribes and pled "no contest" to failure to report income on the bribes. He resigned the Vice Presidency on October 10, 1973. He was the only Vice President to resign due to criminal charges.

== References ==

<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Agnew, Spiro}}

[[Category:Maryland Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Republicans]]

Richard Nixon

2016-03-18T21:38:50Z

SharonW: /* External Links */

{{Officeholder
|name=Richard Nixon
|image=Richard Nixon by Wills.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Thelma Catherine "Pat" Ryan
|religion=[[Quaker]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
|vp=[[Spiro Agnew]] [[Gerald Ford]]
|preceded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Gerald Ford]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961
|president=[[Dwight Eisenhower]]
|preceded=[[Alben W. Barkley]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=California
|terms=December 4, 1950 – January 1, 1953
|preceded=[[Sheridan Downey]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thomas Kuchel]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=California
|district=12th
|terms=January 3, 1947 – December 1, 1950
|preceded=Jerry Voorhis
|former=y
|succeeded=Patrick J. Hillings
}}
}}
'''Richard Milhous Nixon''' was the 37th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1969 to 1974. He was the only U.S. President to resign the office. He also served as the 36th [[Vice President of the United States]] of America under President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] from 1953 to 1961.

In 1946, he was elected as a [[U.S. Representative]]. As a Congressman from [[California]], and as a member of the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], he investigated [[Communist]]s and instigated the successful prosecution of [[Alger Hiss]] for spying for the Soviet Union during [[World War II]].

After two terms in the House, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in November of 1950. After losing his first presidential race to [[John F. Kennedy]] by a narrow margin in 1960, he unsuccessfully ran for Governor of California in 1962, losing to incumbent Edmund G Brown.

In 1968 he was elected president, and was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974 due to a threat of impeachment by Congress for the [[Watergate Affair]]. The main impeachment charge was that Nixon obstructed justice by telling employees to mislead FBI investigators about the Watergate burglary.

==Early Life==
Richard Milhous Nixon was born in [[Yorba Linda, California]], on January 9, 1913. Soon after, his family moved to Whittier, California. Nixon's childhood years were not unusual for someone growing up in two small towns near Los Angeles. His parents, Frank and Hannah Nixon, were devout [[Quakers]]. Nixon had four siblings and saw two of his brothers die from [[tuberculosis]]. Nixon grew up relatively poor, as his father earned a modest income from his gas station and grocery store. Due to these hard times, he established a quality of determination and strong work ethic. A good student and a hard worker, Nixon excelled scholastically.

Nixon attended Fullerton High School and Whittier High School. He graduated second in his class from Whittier with honor in the study of [[Shakespeare]] and [[Latin]]. He was awarded scholarships to [[Harvard]] and [[Yale]] University, but declined due to his family's financial condition. He instead enrolled at [[Whittier College]], a local [[Quaker]] school, where he co-founded the "Orthogonian Society", a new organzation to the campus geared towards working-class students. At Whittier, Nixon, a formidable debater, was elected freshman class president, and served as student body vice president in his junior year and president in his senior year. While at Whittier, he taught Sunday school at [[East Whittier Friends Church]] and remained a member all his life.

A lifelong football fan, Nixon practiced with the team, but played little. In 1934, he graduated second in his class from Whittier, and went on to [[Duke University|Duke University School of Law]], where he received a full scholarship, was elected president of the Duke Bar Association, and graduated third in his class. In 1942 Nixon became a lawyer for the Office of Price Administration, the wartime liberal [[New Deal]] program that regulated all prices and rationed basic commodities.

During World War II, Nixon served in the [[Navy]] as a reserve officer, serving in the supply corps on several islands in the South Pacific, commanding cargo handling units in the SCAT. There he was known as "Nick" and for his exceptional poker-playing skills, banking a large sum of money that helped finance his first campaign for Congress. He rose to the rank of lieutenant commander and resigned after the war in March, 1946.

==Congressional Career==
:''See related article : [[Legacy of Alger Hiss]]
After service in the Navy he entered an entirely unstructured California political environment-- parties hardly existed there in the 1940s, and many voters were recent arrivals. As a result Nixon never built a secure base in California (or anywhere else). In 1946 he defeated five-term Democrat Representative Jerry Voorhis, a leading liberal. Two years later, Nixon ran for reelection in both the Republican and Democrat primaries and won endorsement of both parties in the general election. <ref>Only California allowed this sort of "cross filing," and they later dropped it and went to normal intra-party primaries. Richard Matthew Pious, ''The Presidents,'' pg. 515</ref> Nixon took typical positions for a California Republican: he was hostile to [[Communism]], internationalist in outlook, and middle-of-the road in economic and social issues.

Nixon's first major breakthrough came in Congress, where his dogged investigation broke the impasse of the [[Alger Hiss]] spy case in 1948. The idea that Hiss--a former senior adviser to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]]-- was a Soviet spy alarmed the nation, and won the lifelong hatred of the left, whose veneer of patriotism was dissolved. [[Image:Eisenhower_Nixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Eisenhower and Nixon on a 1952 Campaign Stop.]]
In 1950 Nixon was elected to the [[United States Senate]] by defeating a leading Hollywood liberal, Helen Gahagan Douglas using tough campaign tactics that emphasized her votes with the far left.

==Vice Presidency==

Because of his membership of the California delegation at the 1952 [[Republican National Convention]], his strong anti-[[communist]] credentials, and his appeal to the [[west]]ern part of the [[United States]], Nixon was named as [[General]] [[Dwight Eisenhower]]'s [[Vice President of the United States of America|vice presidential]] [[running mate]].

In the midst of the campaign questions arose about a group of seventy-six [[business]]man from southern California who had contributed to a secret slush fund for Richard Nixon, being paid $900 a month (totaling $18,168 up to that point). There was talk of Nixon dropping from the ticket. Nixon claimed that money was used for office expenses only. On September 23, 1952 he gave the now infamous "Checkers Speech" in which he said that he and his wife, [[Patrica Nixon|Pat Nixon]] do not live lavishly, saying that his wife had not even owned a fur coat but only "a respectable Republican cloth coat". He went on to bring up a gift someone gave his [[child]]ren, a "little cocker spaniel [[dog]]" named Checkers, and said defiantly, "regardless of what they about it, we're going to keep it." The speech was meet with overwhelming public approval. In November, Eisenhower and Nixon swept their way in office, winning 55 percent of the vote, to 44 percent for Democrat opponent [[Adlai Stevenson]].

As Vice President Richard Nixon occasionally presided over the Senate and chaired the President's Commission on [[Government]] Contracts, which dealt with racial and religious discrimination by government contractors, and the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability for Economic growth (although Nixon had little influence over it). Nixon also chaired the National Security Council. However, in a [[press]] conference President Eisenhower was asked to give an example of Richard Nixon's contributions as Vice President, to which Eisenhower replied, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

Nixon did have an influential role in [[White House]] political operations. He campaigned for Republican members of Congress in 1954 and 1958. Nixon positioned himself as Presidential and his famous 1959 "Kitchen debate" in [[Moscow]] with [[Soviet Union]] President [[Nikita Khrushchev]] boosted his public appeal. By the end of the Eisenhower administration Nixon had become the top contender to be the Republican nomination for the 1960 Presidential election.
[[Image:Johnfkennedyrichardnixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy in their 1960 Presidential Debate.]]

==1960 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1960]]''

Nixon easily won the Republican nomination for the presidency, but ran a poor campaign in the general election. Despite division over the modern [[civil rights]] movement, the country was enjoying a period of relative prosperity.

The most prominent issues were the [[Cold War]] and the new assumption of power of [[dictator]] [[Fidel Castro]] of [[Cuba]]. Public opinion polls showed that the country trusted Nixon more on [[foreign policy]] issues while Democrat opponent [[John F. Kennedy]] was favored on domestic issues. 1960 marked the first presidential election in which televised debates were used. Kennedy won the debates, which resulted in him defeating Nixon by a razor-thin margin of 49.7 percent of the vote to 49.5 percent. Nixon believed that there was voter fraud in Cook County, [[Illinois]] which resulted in him losing that state, however Nixon chose not to contest the results. Kennedy's lead in the electoral college was such that he still would have been elected even if he had lost Illinois.

==1962 Gubernatorial Campaign==

After the election Nixon returned to California and ran for [[Governor]] in 1962 against incumbent [[Pat Brown]]. Brown defeated Nixon with 52 percent of the vote to 46 percent. In a post-election press conference Nixon announced the end of his political career and said to the press "you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around with anymore." However, Nixon continued to campaign for Republican congressional candidates and traveled the world, sharpening his knowledge of foreign issues.

==1968 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1968]]''

By 1967 Nixon's financial backers were raising funds to bankroll another bid for the White House. In the Republican primaries and caucuses moderates and liberals supported [[Michigan]] Governor [[George Romney]] and later [[New York]] Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], while [[conservative]]s supported [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]]. Nixon was able to win support from southern conservatives and pass Reagan in the polls, eventually winning the nomination. In Nixon's second attempt for the Presidency the United States was in the midst of the [[Vietnam War]], with Democrats associated with the violence. With President [[Lyndon Johnson]] losing [[credibility]] because of the increasingly unpopular [[war]], he declined to run for another term. [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] [[Hubert Humphrey]] narrowly won the Democrat nomination. [[Alabama]] Governor [[George Wallace]], a strong segregationist, entered the race as a third party candidate. Nixon promised to end the bombing in [[Vietnam]], unify the nation and restore law and order to the country.

President Johnson helped Humphrey after he announced that bombing in North Vietnam would be halted and that a cease-fire would follow, however his announcement was too late. On election day, Nixon defeated Humphrey by over 100 electoral votes, although he won the election with only 43 percent of the vote to 42 percent, partly because Wallace took 13 percent.

==1972 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1972]]''

President Nixon's reelection campaign got underway in 1972. He had high approval ratings for his handling China and the Soviet Union. Nixon's Democrat opponent, [[South Dakota]] Senator [[George McGovern]] was viewed too [[liberal]] by many Americans. However, there was still concern in the Nixon camp because of his close victory in 1968 and the continued involvement in the Vietnam War. He chose to engage in tactics that included an effort to steal information in the Democrat Party's headquarters. Five Nixon supporters broke into the party's office at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] on June 17, 1972. However, this did not become an issue in the campaign, with President Nixon trumping McGovern in 49 out of 50 states.

==Presidency (1969-1974)==

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Richard Nixon
| 1969-1974
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Spiro Agnew]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Gerald Ford]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[William P. Rogers]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Henry Kissinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[David M. Kennedy]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[John Connally]]
| 1971-1972
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1972-1974
|-
|
| [[William Simon]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Melvin R. Laird]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973
|-
|
| [[James Schlesinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John N. Mitchell]]
| 1969-1972
|-
|
| [[Richard Kleindienst]]
| 1972-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|
| [[William B. Saxbe]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Walter Joseph Hickel]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[Rogers Morton]]
| 1971-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Clifford M. Hardin]]
| 1969–1971
|-
|
| [[Earl Butz]]
| 1971–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Maurice Stans]]
| 1969–1972
|-
|
| [[Peter Peterson]]
| 1972–1973
|-
|
| [[Frederick B. Dent]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[James D. Hodgson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Peter J. Brennan]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Robert Finch]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[George Romney]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[James Thomas Lynn]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[John A. Volpe]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[Claude Brinegar]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|}

=== Vietnam War ===

[[Image:PresidentNixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon points out the NVA sanctuaries along the Cambodian border in his speech to the American people announcing the Cambodian incursion, 04/30/70]] Two months after coming into office American deaths in Vietnam reached thirty-six hundred. Nixon appointed [[Harvard]] Professor [[Henry Kissinger]] as National Security Adviser, who had secret peace talks with the North Vietnamese. Peace negations dragged on throughout Nixon's first term. His Vietnam strategies included "Vietnamization," a policy aimed at reducing U.S. casualties and troops, while convincing the American public that the Vietnamese people could assume the primary responsibility of waging war. To win support for the war among the [["silent majority,"]] Nixon pursued the [["politics of polarization."]] Instrumental to this cause was Nixon's first vice president [[Spiro T. Agnew]], who criticized opponents of the war as "nattering nabobs of negativism," and an "effete corps of impudent snobs." Nixon also sought to instill in the North Vietnamese the belief that he was volatile and unstable, and willing to use nuclear weapons in the war, a strategy known as the "madman scenario."

On April 30, 1970, ten days after announcing that 150,000 American troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam in the following year, Nixon announced that U.S. troops had invaded Cambodia. This announcement brought widespread protests and violence at college and university campuses across the nation. Four students died at [[Kent State University]] in Ohio and two died at [[Jackson State University]] in Mississippi. Many campuses shut down, some for the remainder of the academic year. The [[Paris Peace Accords]] were signed on January 27, 1973, signaling the beginning of the peace process that ended with the evacuation of the last American personnel two years later on April 30, 1975.

=== Policy of Detente ===

[[Image:Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Richard_Nixon.jpg‎|right|thumb|275px|Richard M. Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, 05/19/73.]] Nixon worked to establish a friendlier relationship with the Soviet Union and [[China]]. The Soviets were not pleased of Nixon, a man who spent his career attacking communism, had become President. Although still a strong [[anti-communist]], Nixon understood the growing role of China and Western Europe, realizing that he had to be more diplomatic. With the help of National Security Adviser [[Henry Kissinger]], Nixon created an approach called Detente, which was relaxed tensions between the United States and its two major communist rivals, the Soviet Union and China. Nixon began the policy of detente by lifting trade and travel restrictions.

After a long series of highly secret negations between Kissinger and Chinese leaders, Nixon announced that he would visit China in February 1972. During the historic trip, the leaders of both nations agreed to have a more normal relationship. Nixon told the Chinese during a banquet toast, "Let us start a long march together, not in lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of building world structure of peace and justice." In taking the trip, Nixon hoped to both strengthen ties with China but also believed it would encourage the Soviet Union to be more diplomatic. He proved to be correct.

Shortly after the public learned about China, the Soviets proposed an American-Soviet summit, a high level diplomatic meeting that was held in May 1972. President Nixon flew to Moscow for a week long summit, thus becoming the first American President since [[World War 2]] to visit the Soviet Union. The two superpowers signed the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT 1, a plan to limit nuclear arms that the two nations had been working on for years. Nixon and Soviet President [[Leonid Brezhnev]] also agreed to increase trade and exchange scientific information. President Nixon had made a significant mark on the world stage with major foreign policy triumphs.

=== Environmentalism and Socialism of Nixon ===

Although Nixon was a member of the [[Republican Party]], he had many [[liberal]] positions. In his tenure he enacted the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) and the [[Occupational Safety and Health Act]]. Nixon also fought "[[Global warming]]".<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/306893/</ref>

=== Watergate ===

The event that ended the Nixon presidency began on June 17, 1972, when five men, all employees of Nixon's reelection campaign, were caught breaking into rival Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC. The intruders and two other accomplices were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973. The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on August 9, 1974. On September 9, 1974, his successor Gerald Ford granted him "a full, free, and absolute pardon." This effectively ended investigation into the depth of Nixon's involvement in the break-in at [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, or any other criminal activities. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

[[Image:NixonFarewell.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon delivers his Farewell Remarks to the White House Staff in the East Room, with his family looking on, 08/09/74]] The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. These recordings reveal that Nixon's role in the cover-up began as early as six days after the break-in. The tapes also reveal an immense scope of crimes and abuses that predate the Watergate break-in. These include campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In October 1973 Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resigned in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "Saturday Night Massacre", led to widespread calls for Nixon's impeachment.

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Gerald Ford]]. Ford later pardoned Nixon.

The Nixon White House was also involved in [[Henry_Kissinger#Latin_America| controversies in Latin America]], which included [[Henry_Kissinger#The_Schneider_Affair| an alleged assassination attempt]] in [[Chile]], among [[Henry_Kissinger#Major_Controversies| other questionable activities]].

==Family==

Nixon married Thelma Catherine Ryan, known as "Pat", in 1940. They had two children: Patricia (b. 1946) and Julie (b. 1948).

[[File:Pat nixon.jpg|300px|center]]

==References==
<References/>

==Further reading==

* Aitken, Jonathan. ''Nixon: A Life'' (1993).
* Ambrose, Stephen. ''Nixon'' (3v 1987-1991), the standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-I-Stephen-E-Ambrose/dp/0671657224/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808418&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 1]; hostile to RN
* Black, Conrad. ''Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full'' (2007) 1150pp; by a conservative; friendly to RN
* Bundy, William. ''A Tangled Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Tangled-Web-Making-Foreign-Presidency/dp/B000C4SRCW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808485&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Congress and the Nation, 1968-1972'' (1973). Detailed coverage of all the official actions in Washington
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Frick, Daniel. ''Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession''. (2008). 344 pages
* Greenberg, David. ''Nixon's Shadow: The History of the Image'' (2004), influential study of his changing reputation [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Shadow-History-David-Greenberg/dp/0393326160/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* Hoff, Joan. ''Nixon without Watergate'' (1994) a favorable estimate of the presidential years; also titled ''Nixon Reconsidered''; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99580185 online edition]
* Kutler, Stanley I. ''Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon'' (1992), strongly hostile [http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Watergate-Crisis-Richard-Nixon/dp/0393308278/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450532&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* MacMillan, Margaret. ''Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World'' (2007)
* Matusow, Allen J. ''Nixon's Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Economy-Booms-Busts-Dollars/dp/0700608885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808547&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: Memoirs'' (1978),a primary source; one of the most important presidential autobiographies [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808583&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pietrusza, David ''1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies'' New York: Union Square Press, 2008
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Nixon: Alone in the White House'' (2002). well-received study of the White House years (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/President-Nixon-Alone-White-House/dp/B000066TQ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450725&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schoenebaum, Eleanora, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Nixon/Ford Years'' (1979), biographies of all the main political figures
* Small, Melvin. ''The Presidency of Richard Nixon'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-Richard-Nixon-American/dp/0700612556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450643&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; hostile
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)

==Primary Sources by Nixon==

*Victory Without War, New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1989.
*Beyond Peace, New York, NY: Random House, 1994.
*Four Great Americans: Tributes Delivered by President Richard Nixon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.
*In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Leaders New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982.
*Nixon in Retrospect, 1946-1962: Selected Quotations. Silver Spring, MD: Research Data Publishers, 1973.
*No More Vietnams, New York, NY: Arbor House, 1985.
*Real Peace. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One- SuperpowerWorld. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
*Setting the Course; The First Year, New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1970.
*Six Crises. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Summons to Greatness: A Collage of Inspirational Thought and Practical Ideas from the Messages and Addresses of Richard Nixon, Thirty-Seventh President of the United States, Washington, D.C.: Friends of President Nixon, 1972.
*The Real War, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1980.

==External Links==

* [http://www.nixonfoundation.org Nixon Birthplace & Library], in Yorba Linda, California
* [http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Nixon_(1913) Genealogy Wiki] Nixon Family History
* [http://www.californiaresortlife.com/orange/yorba_linda.htm Birthplace Tour]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

http://www.nixonfoundation.org/

http://www.nixonlibrary.org/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nixon, Richard}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Failed Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]
[[Category:1970s]]
[[Category:Quakers]]

Dolley Madison

2016-03-18T21:34:49Z

SharonW:

[[Image:Dolly Madison.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Dolley Madison]]
'''Dolley Madison''' or '''Dolly Madison''' (born '''Dolley Payne''') lived from 1768 - 1849. She was the wife of [[President]] [[James Madison]] from 1794 until his death, and served as [[First Lady]] of the [[United States]] from 1809 to 1817. She came from a [[Religious Society of Friends|Quaker]] background and was the widow of John Todd. She is famous for having saved a portrait of [[George Washington]] from the [[White House]] before it was burned by the [[British]] army during the [[War of 1812]] and was known as a lavish and charming hostess when her husband was [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] (1801-1809) and President (1809-1817).

She cut as attractive and vivacious a figure as James Madison did a sickly and anti-social one. Dolley is largely credited with inventing the role of First Lady as political ally and adviser to the president. They had no children.

==Further reading==
* Allgor, Catherine. ''A perfect union: Dolly Madison and the creation of the American nation'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Union-Madison-Creation-American/dp/0805073272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255461447&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
===Primary sources===

* Madison, Dolly. ''Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison: Wife of James Madison...'' (1887) [http://books.google.com/books?id=6RYOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false full text online]

==References==
<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Madison, Dolley}}
[[category:North Carolina]]
[[category:Virginia]]
[[category:Pennsylvania]]
[[category:First Ladies]]
[[category:Early National U.S.]]
[[category:Quakers]]

Frances Folsom

2016-03-18T21:30:04Z

SharonW:

'''Frances Clara Folsom''' (July 21, 1864 - October 29, 1947) married sitting [[President of the United States]] [[Grover Cleveland]] on June 2, 1886. This was the third time a president had married while in the [[White House]]. One other president who did so was [[John Tyler]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Folsom, Frances}}
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]

Mamie Eisenhower

2016-03-18T21:24:18Z

SharonW:

'''Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower''' (November 14, 1896 - November 1, 1979) served as [[First Lady]] of the [[United States]]. She was the wife of President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eisenhower, Mamie}}
[[Category: First Ladies]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-08-24T22:00:20Z

SharonW: Reverted edits by Markman (talk) to last revision by Brenden

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8QLI39r0nk "Fucc the Devil"]
|Andrew Jackson Jihad
|Song about defeating the devil and the dangers of alcoholism.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against Communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Glory Hallelujah''
|Frank Turner
|Rejects those who say there is no God, insisting that never was the case
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Otis Redding
|This song is about respecting a productive member of society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their Bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sUMv5sbW8 ''Star Spangled Banner'']
|Madison Rising
|The American national anthem, as performed by rock band Madison Rising, who put out a challenge to the American public to renew its intimacy with and understanding of the anthem and its patriotic message. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/you-havent-heard-this-star-spangled-banner/]
|NA
|Classic/Traditional/Rock
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtube.com/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfJPxLntZU ''Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'']
|Written by Frank Loesser; made famous by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra
|A patriotic song written and published as sheet music in 1942; Kay Kyser's recording came out in 1943. This rousing tune is about a chaplain (called a "sky pilot" in the song) who is with some men on a warship in the heat of a battle. One of the soldiers asks the chaplain to pray for the men shooting at the enemy aircraft. In response, the chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the gun turrets on the ship, and begins firing at the planes himself, and tells the soldiers, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll all stay free!" Beyond the obvious pro-Christian and pro-American messages, it also tells us that sometimes, the Lord calls on us to put down the Bible and pick up our guns to defend the American way.
|1
|Patriotic/Jazz, Classic
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjSmODTQsk ''A Dead Man's Words'']
|Queensrÿche
|No Man Left Behind. "The word we hear is there's one man down and he's alive. They ask for volunteers. I raise my hand high. I'm sure he'd do the same for me. It's three days through the desert heat to save one man's life and I don't even know his name."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefSlVqENRM ''At 30,000 Ft.'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, pro-Iraqi/Afghanistan action. "Flaming oil blackens the sky. I don't know why...their hate is the reason for the Hell that I make."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA, NYC and SF hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their heads in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and Satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk ''Don't Tread On Me'']
|Metallica
|Tune about Gadsden flag
|N/A
|Metal
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZsG1ikgK8 ''Hundred Mile Stare'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, freedom. "What ever happened to conviction and faith? People trip from side to side; don't know which way or what side to take. Always known the truth. It's really black and white. I've got no fear of judgment when it's time to fight."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Sister Christian''
|Night Ranger
|This song advices the drummers sister to remain a virgin till she finds "Mr. Right"
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcT3sIBRv_I ''Sliver'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, bravery. "It's time to sack up and let go of your mothers. Take your gun, it's the cross that's carried by your brothers."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4 ''I've Seen Footage'']
|Death Grips
|Profane. Criticizes the glorification of violence by the mainstream media.
|NA
|Hip Hop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and got divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZG4Pw-M58 ''The Dumber They Come'']
|Eddie Cantor
|A song about how [[Professor values|liberal college education]] destroys romance and femininity.
|?
|Vaudeville
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MRrFWs--g ''Return to Oz'']
|Scissor Sisters
|A song about the connection between [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexuality and illegal drug use]],<ref>http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/ScisSisIntBD.htm</ref> a subject that the [[lamestream media]] prefers not to talk about.
|?
|Glam Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8 ''Brimful of Asha'']
|Cornershop
|A song which mocks big government: " We don't care about no Government warning/'Bout their promotion of the simple life/And the dams they're building"
|?
|Alternative Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qcMjKxt-dE ''53rd & 3rd'']
|The Ramones
|A song denouncing sodomy.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUGeA2lur4 ''Beat On the Brat'']
|The Ramones
|A song acknowledging the fact that sometimes [[corporal punishment]] is necessary in order to discipline children.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUsIU161w4 ''Feuer Frei'']
|Rammstein
|An anti-pacifist song which acknowledges that there's some merit in war.
|?
|Industrial
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_DVS_303kQ ''Goodbye Horses'']
|Q Lazzarus
|A song that might very well be about the hope Christianity offers the world. The person the singer talks with can be construed as a cynical atheist who has a sad outlook on life due to his lack of belief in a higher power. The singer on the other hand still has hope, as she knows there is a God. In the final lines she sings about flying over horses. This might interpreted to mean that like all of mankind she too experienced physical death, but due her belief in Jesus found her way onto Heaven.
|?
|New Wave
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Hammer to Fall'' (Queen) - talks about being hopeful for the Soviet Union falling
*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One''] by Orleans - a very good song about marital fidelity. However, one of the singers, [[John Hall]], later became a Democratic Congressman from New York and sued Republican presidential candidate [[John McCain]] over the use of the song in his campaign.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

RINO Backers

2013-03-20T12:17:27Z

SharonW: corrected capitalization; remove self-linking wikilink

'''RINO backers''' are those who profit, either financially or politically, from pretending to be socially [[conservative]], but then back [[liberal]] [[Republicans]] just when it matters most.

One example occurred in September 2012, when the [[media bullying]] of [[pro-life]] leader and candidate for the [[United States Senate|Senate]] from [[Missouri]] [[Todd Akin]] highlighted who sides with [[RINO]] or [[liberal]] positions when it counts most -- on the important social issues. Seven weeks later, [[Richard Mourdock]] made a similar [[pro-life]] statement that caused more RINO backers to emerge from the woodwork.

Below is a list of the RINO backers, and afterward a list of those who stood up for conservative principles.

== Opposed [[Pro-Life]] Leader Todd Akin (or Richard Mourdock) ==

'''''The following have become a hindrance to advancement of the [[pro-life]] movement, by opposing the principled stance of Todd Akin''''', as their demagoguery interferes with limits on abortion based on false allegations of rape:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[Karl Rove]]
|Karl Rove engaged in demagoguery against Akin by falsely pretending that Akin was drawing a distinction between "legitimate rape" and "illegitimate rape": "After those damaging statements, I mean to try and differentiate between what’s a legitimate rape and an illegitimate rape and believing somehow that a woman’s body would reject a pregnancy if it was an illegitimate rape … These were reprehensible and deplorable comments." <ref>[http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/08/21/karl-rove-rep-akin-should-leave-race-after-deplorable-comments/]</ref> Rove's [[American Crossroads]] relies on funding from [[Las Vegas]] casino owners, and Karl Rove evidently cares more about money for his (ineffective) [[Super PAC]] than [[pro-life]] values. More than six months later, Rove was still muttering that Akin's pro-life comment was somehow "reprehensible".<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288633-rove-hits-back-after-palins-cpac-criticism-</ref>
|-
|[[Ron Johnson]]
|Johnson had no connection with the issue and is not up for reelection, but apparently act on orders by [[RINO]]s in pontificating that "Todd Akin's statements are reprehensible and inexcusable...Gaining a Republican majority in the US Senate and fixing the huge challenges that face our nation is more important than any one individual's political ambitions. Todd Akin should do the right thing for the nation and step aside today, so Missouri Republicans can put forth a candidate that can win in November." <ref>[http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=277645]</ref>
|-
|[[Sean Hannity]]
|"As a political observer I see it differently here. I think for the next week all you're going to hear from Democrats is your comments. ...I think there is one political reality that I think has to be faced by you and your campaign and that is that you know, the reality here is that Democrats now have a ton of ammunition and they are now going to try to use these remarks to hurt everybody they can. And if I was put in that position, I would at least be thinking about what is in the best interest of the party."<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/20/hannity_urges_akin_to_consider_dropping_out_in_interview_with_him.html]</ref> Recall that Hannity once had a [[pro-life]] priest on his show simply to berate him unfairly for his principled stance.
|-
|[[RedState|redstate.com]]
|"This is abhorrent, ignorant, idiotic, foolish, blindingly stupid…Akin must go." <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neoavatara/2012/08/19/todd-akin-must-go/]</ref>
|-
|[[Ann Coulter]]
|"This selfish swine, Todd Akin, is going to hurt the Republican Party." <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/ann-coulter-todd-akin-selfish-swine_n_1824510.html]</ref>
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|"Todd Akin’s comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country." <ref> [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-pushes-rep-todd-akin-drop-race-lets-deadline-calls-furor-a-bit-overreaction-article-1.1141698#ixzz24TyqMN9X] </ref>
|-
|[[Paul Ryan]]
|"His statements were outrageous, over the pale. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that." <ref>[http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/08/21/in-exclusive-interview-paul-ryan-distances-self-from-akin/]</ref>
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Falsely implied that Akin was staying in the race based on "self-desire": "So you have to step aside ... from your self-desire to get in there and serve and do what you believe is right, and you have to, in a sense, take one for the team, and you have to step aside, hand the mantle to someone else." <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79976.html#ixzz24Twr7RsW] </ref>
|-
|[[Rush Limbaugh]]
|perhaps fearful of losing an advertiser, even though he's already made millions by pretending to be [[conservative]], Rush piled on with the [[media bullying]] against Akin. Limbaugh called Akin's comment "stupid" and then, illustrating Limbaugh's foolish self-centeredness, declared that "If I had demanded Akin drop out, he’d be gone."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80003.html#ixzz253Tv1IjT</ref> Limbaugh said, "What I think Mr. Akin should try to realize here as he makes his decision is that all of these things that he truly cares about will be much easier to make happen if we win the Senate and the White House and hold the House this November. He must put the nation and its future ahead of everything else that he's considering. And I hope he comes to the right conclusion."<ref>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/21/akin_s_remark_was_stupid_and_untrue_now_he_must_put_the_nation_s_future_first</ref>
|-
|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|"If only we conservative women had magical ways of preventing stupid Repub men from implanting rhetorical IEDs on our lawns…"<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/20/the-todd-akin-mess/</ref>
|-
|[[Tea Party Express]] leader Amy Kremer
|"One of the lessons we learned in 2010 is that we need candidates who are not only conservative, but are capable of putting together a strong campaign against liberal opponents. Akin’s frequent ‘Bidenisms’ are distracting from the important issues at hand."<ref>http://www.teapartyexpress.org/5205/tea-party-express-urges-rep-akin-to-step-down</ref>
|-
|[[Reince Priebus]]
|Priebus said the Party would not support Akin financially. "[H]e could be tied. We're not going to send him a penny."<ref>http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/27/priebus-on-akin-he-could-be-tied-were-not-going-to-send-him-a-penny/</ref>
|-
|[[Mitch McConnell]]
|"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse, although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/20/news/la-pn-mcconnell-suggests-todd-akin-consider-his-options-20120820</ref>
|-
|[[John Cornyn]]
|"Congressman Akin’s statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible,” he said in a statement release by the campaign committee. “I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service."<ref>http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/john-cornyn-gives-todd-akin-a-24-hour-ultimatum-we-want-you-out/</ref>
|-
|[[Roy Blunt]]
|"Todd Akin, who has served in the House for a dozen years, has managed to get himself into a situation where he has become the issue,” Blunt said at a breakfast Tuesday sponsored by Politico. “If he gets out, I think we win the seat."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/28/blunt_says_akin_imperils_gops_hopes_for_missouri_115233.html</ref>
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|"As a husband and father of two young women, I found Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong. There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin’s statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for US Senate in Missouri."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref>
|-
|[[Jeff Flake]]
|"I oppose abortion, but exceptions must be made for rape, incest and to protect life of the mother. Cong. Akin’s comment was wrong. #azsen"<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref>
|-
|[[Dean Heller]]
|"Todd Akin’s comments were unquestionably inappropriate and absurd. He should not be the standard bearer for the Republican Party in Missouri."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref> ''And who is Dean Heller?'' He was ''appointed'' as Senator from [[Nevada]] by the Republican Establishment, rather than being elected by the people to the position.
|-
|[[Charles Krauthammer]]
|"He's toxic. Nobody will touch him. Republicans aren't going to support him. He's not going to get any money. They've tossed away a seat that they could easily have won. It isn't only that it was offensive and toxic; it was unbelievably stupid. And there is enough stupidity in Congress that we don't need to add to it in this large amount. The guy's got to leave."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/20/krauthammer_on_akin_toxic_and_unbelievably_stupid.html</ref>
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|"Akin should not only exit his race for the Senate, he should drop out of public life. I’m offended by what he thinks, not just what he said."<ref>http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/Christie_calls_for_Missouri_Senate_candidate_Akin_to_drop_out_of_race.html</ref>
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Demanded that [[Richard Mourdock]] apologize for saying that pregnancy that (rarely) occurs from rape is something [[God]] intended.<ref>http://www.chron.com/news/article/Pence-Mourdock-should-apologize-for-rape-comment-3977677.php</ref>
|}

== Stood With Principle and [[Pro-Life]] Leader Todd Akin ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[American Family Association]]
|AFA representative Bryan Fischer stated, "Akin's words, for which he apologized even though he had no need to, were right. He was entirely correct to say that pregnancies in cases of forcible rape are rare."<ref>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=004DDFAC-6907-452E-93F5-62D3793BBABE</ref>
|-
|Connie Mackey and the [[Family Research Council]]
|Never wavered from their support of Todd Akin throughout the [[media bullying]]; the Council's president, [[Tony Perkins]] called the [[GOP]] treatment of Akin "suspect".<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/tony-perkins-gop-treatment-of-akin-suspect/</ref>
|-
|Missouri Delegates to the [[Republican National Convention]]
|"Missouri Delegates Still Support Todd Akin, Despite Controversy."<ref>http://www.rollcall.com/news/missouri_delegates_still_support_todd_akin_despite_controversy-217050-1.html</ref>
|-
|Congressman [[Steve King]]
|"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for. And in this case, I'm seeing the same thing -- petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57497428-503544/rep-steve-king-backs-up-todd-akin-weighs-in-on-rape-and-abortion/</ref>
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|"Unlike his fellow Kentucky Republican senator, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul isn’t calling on Republican Congressman Todd Akin to leave the Missouri Senate race."<ref>[http://mycn2.com/politics/rand-paul-reticent-to-weigh-in-on-akin-s-future-but-says-akin-s-comment-was-incorrect Rand Paul reticent to weigh in on Akin's future but says Akin's comment was incorrect] by Ryan Alessi, mycn2.com, August 22, 2012, retrieved August 24, 2012</ref>
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Siding with Todd Akin, Huckabee observed that Akin's comment "was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin's own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates?"<ref>http://akin.org/huckabee-chip-in</ref>
|-
|Dr. [[John C. Willke]]
|"It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/news/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821</ref> (Dr. Willke is a physician with training in obstetrics.)
|-
|[[Susan B. Anthony List]]
|"We are proud to support Congressman Akin." <ref>http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/08/social-conservatives-including-frc-head-tony-perkins-defending-rep-todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comment.html</ref>
|-
|[[Tony Perkins]]
|"Todd said he misspoke. He apologized for it. And so now I think it’s time to move on.”<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80049.html</ref>
|-
|[[Pat Buchanan]]
|"Whittaker Chambers said that “the great failing of American conservatives is they do not retrieve their wounded.”
He had it right, as Todd Akin can testify."<ref>http://buchanan.org/blog/a-grand-old-party-in-panic-2-5223</ref>
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|"I think Todd Akin is the choice of the people of Missouri. And Todd Akin has publicly apologized. People make mistakes.”<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/politics/gingrich-appears-to-support-akin-20120902</ref>
|-
|[[Victoria Jackson]]
|“The Todd Akin thing was so blown out of proportion — it’s a joke. How many times do people get pregnant from rape? It’s point zero zero one percent. It’s a joke. I read lots of articles. I know people, because I’m 53. I’ve know a lot of people, and I’ve actually never known anyone who got pregnant from being raped.”<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/31/victoria-jackson-todd-akin-rape-abortion_n_1847852.html</ref>
|-
|[[Jill Stanek]]
|"I'm SICK of GOP's wimpiness on pro-life issue, most recently evidenced by @ToddAkin panic."<ref>https://twitter.com/JillStanek/status/240391400078864384</ref>
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Released a joint statement with DeMint saying ""Todd Akin is a principled conservative who is committed to winning and fighting for freedom in the U.S. Senate. Todd will work to stop reckless spending, stop the out of control debt, repeal the government takeover of healthcare, support our military and defend life at every stage."<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/26/santorum-demint-endorse-akin/</ref>
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Released a joint statement with Santorum saying "Todd Akin is a principled conservative who is committed to winning and fighting for freedom in the U.S. Senate. Todd will work to stop reckless spending, stop the out of control debt, repeal the government takeover of healthcare, support our military and defend life at every stage." Funding Akin with the Senate Conservatives Fund he founded. <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/26/santorum-demint-endorse-akin/</ref>
|-
|[[Mark Levin]]
|"I agree with Senators DeMint and Santorum, as well as Newt Gingrich. It's time to get behind Todd Akin." <ref>Sept 26th post to Facebook</ref>
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Catherine Frazier, Rick Perry's press secretary, wrote in an email that "Perry supports Todd Akin, a conservative Republican, over Claire McCaskill, a Democrat."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-support-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-comment-missouri/story?id=17332911</ref> Perry should still be considered a RINO backer though due to his past endorsement of [[Rudy Giuliani]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-perrys-ace-in-the-hole-rudy-giuliani/2011/07/19/gIQAOfQyNI_blog.html</ref>
|}

== Other comments ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[Dick Morris]]
|"I think that story is a big plus for Romney right now because the story is not that some kooky Republican Congressman running for the Senate said something stupid. That was the first story. Now the story is that the responsible leaders of the Republican Party – Romney and McConnell and Ryan and all of them – are piling on Akin to withdraw and he won’t. And that really sends a message to pro-choice women that they don’t have to be afraid of Mitt Romney, that they don’t have to vote for Obama because of that."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/08/23/morris-akin-story-now-big-plus-romney</ref>
|-
|[[Rick Scott]]
|"I clearly disagree with what he said."<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/gov-scott-practices-monday-night-rnc-speech-condemns-akin-rape-comments Gov. Scott practices for Monday night RNC speech, condemns Akin rape comments] The Buzz, ''Tampa Bay Times'', August 21, 2012, retrieved September 7, 2012.</ref>
|}

==See also==
* [[:Category:Rino backers]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:Rino backers|*]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

User talk:JLauttamus

2012-12-14T20:13:26Z

SharonW: /* You are posting comments with different user names */

Archive:
[[/1|1]]

== Marking pages as spam ==

Thanks for your work! In the future, though, you can just replace the text of spam pages with the template <nowiki>{{spam}}</nowiki>. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:12, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

== Good to see your edits again ==

Good to see your always-intelligent edits again! I look forward to reading what you just wrote about [[Counterexamples to String Theory]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:14, 14 December 2012 (EST)

:Thanks, Andy. I've been following the site since I went on hiatus (on a limited basis -- my wife and I are now the proud parents of a healthy 9-month old, so free time isn't always there!) and am glad to contribute what little bit that I can. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:18, 14 December 2012 (EST)

== You are posting comments with different user names ==

You just used 2 names to post comments on the main page - RyanFT & DGalore.

comments posted by RyanFT

'Another shooting?

Is Facebook or a computer game at fault this time? Or maybe it's just too easy.'

comments posted by DGalore

'Grand Theft Auto features "mall rampages"

No it doesn't. It features various sorts of criminal violence but nothing involving a shopping mall or resembling this kind of incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGalore (talk)'

Both posts were made under your user name. Please explain yourself. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:10, 14 December 2012 (EST)

:EJamesW, if you look under the history for the talk page, both editors you've listed show up with edits. I believe you've misread the situation. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:13, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Formula One

2012-12-14T20:08:40Z

SharonW: /* External Links */ add references

'''Formula One''', also known as '''Formula 1''' or '''F1''' and officially as the '''FIA Formula One World Championship''' is the highest class of [[single-seater]] [[auto racing]] sanctioned by the [[Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile]] (FIA). Formula One is often considered the pinnacle of [[automobile]] [[racing]]. It is the highest class of car racing with speeds topping 320 kph. The Formula One World Championship is held every year on racing tracks on every continent except [[Africa]] and [[Antarctica]]. The Championship is given not only to the winning driver after all 20 races but also to the winner car manufacturer. The current Driver's World Champion is [[German]] [[Christian]] racer Sebastien Vettel, while the Constructor's Champions are the [[Austrian]] team Red Bull Racing, who are, like most of the F1 teams based close to the British circuit Silverstone. Due to the requirement of the drivers to be fit and focused, many of the drivers are devout [[Christians]].

=='''Constructors'''==

The teams for the 2012 season are;

*'''[[Red Bull]] Racing''', which bought the [[Jaguar]] team in 2005, who in turn bought out the [[Stewart]] team. The team's current drivers are Mark Webber ([[Australia]]) and Sebastien Vettel (Germany). The team uses Renault engines, and, like Toro Rosso, are sponsored by Red Bull.

*'''[[Vodafone]] [[McLaren]] [[Mercedes]]''' was founded in 1966. They are the third most successful team in the sport's history, having won the constructors' title 8 times. The team was formed by the [[New Zealand]]er Bruce Mclaren. The current drivers are [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservative Sports Star]] [[Lewis Hamilton]] and [[Jenson Button]]. [[Lewis Hamilton]] will leave McLaren at the end of the 2012 Formula One season and go to the Mercedes team for three seasons. He will be replaced by the Mexican Sauber driver Sergio Perez.

*'''Scuderia [[Ferrari]] [[Marlboro]]''', who first competed in the second-ever Formula One race at [[Monaco]] in 1950, are the most famous and most successful team in the history of Formula One, and present constructors' champions. They have won the constructors' championship 16 times, maostly because of the dominance of [[Michael Schumacher]], who holds the most championship wins in the sport's history. The team uses [[Ferrari]] engines and are sponsored by the [[Marlboro]] [[tobacco]] company. The current drivers are Fernando Alonso and Filipe Massa

*'''[[Mercedes]] F1 Team''', which replaced the [[Honda]] team in 2009 and then became the [[Petronas Mercedes AMG Racing]] in 2010. The are run by Norbet Hoog and have [[Nico Rosberg]] and seven time Formula One drivers champion, [[Micheal Schumacher]] driving for them. From 2013 the [[Lewis Hamilton]] will replace [[Michael Schumacher]], who has neither found a seat for 2013 or announced he is retiring again.

*'''[[Lotus]] F1''' Originally named [[Toleman]] and then became Benetton. Under the leadership of Flavio Briatore, Benetton bought out [[Renault]] and became Lucky 7 Renault F1. However, a tobacco sponsorship ban forced the team to change its name under new sponsorship from ING to ING Renault F1. Fernando Alonso won two championships with the team. Flavio Briatore, along with Pat Symmonds and Nelson Piquet Jr. were convicted of race fixing, which led to them being banned from the sport for for 5 years. The team was then bought out by GenII Capital and recieved sponsorship from Lotus. It later was involved in a legal battle with Caterham (who previously held the rights to the Lotus brand) over who had right to use the name. The current drivers are [[Kimi Raikonen]] and [[Romain Grosjean]].

*'''[[Force India]] F1 Team''', who replaced the [[Spyker]] team in 2008, scored their first points at the 2009 Belgian Grand Prix. The team's present drivers are Nico Hulkenburg and Paul Di Resta. The team uses Mercedes engines and are sponsored by Indian airline [[Kingfisher]] and Indian Finance giant Sahara.

*'''Scuderia [[Red Bull|Toro Rosso]]''', who replaced the [[Minardi]] team in 2006, are a "farm" team for Red Bull Racing, but managed to beat their parent team in 2008. The team's drivers are 2012 debutante, Jean-Eric Vergne ([[France]]) and Daniel Ricciardo ([[Australia]]) who was in the [[HRT]] for 10 races last year. The drivers replaced [[Sebastion Buemi]] and [[Jaime Alguesari]]. The team uses Ferrari engines and are sponsored by beverage company [[Red Bull]].

*'''[[Williams]]''', founded in 1977, are the second most successful team in F1's history, having won the constructors' title 9 times. However, they have not won the title since 1997. The team is heavily reliant on the money from PVDSA, the state oil company of socialist [[Venezuela]]. The team's present drivers are Pastor Maldonado (Venezuela) and Bruno Senna (Brazil). The team uses [[Renualt]] engines and are sponsored by various other Venezuelan state owned companies

*'''Air Asia Caterham Team''' Originally Malaysia F1 team and owned by [[businessman]] Tony Fernandes, who also owns leading English football club [[QPR]]. The team's name was changed to LotusF1 before threir first season in 2010, but Renault, who were sponsored by Lotus challenged this in cours but lost. Meanwhile, Tony Fernandes bought out the [[car]] [[manufacturer]] [[Caterham]] and promptly renamed his team Caterham. The [[Malaysia]]n government, who owns [[Proton]], which in turn owns [[Lotus Cars]] were also rumoured to have let [[Fernandes]] buy Air Malaysia in return for him dropping the legal action against [[Lotus]]. The drivers are [[Vitaly Petrov]] ([[Russia]]), who brings a large amount of state-owned [[Russian]] sponsors and the [[Finland|Finn]] [[Heikki Kovalinen]].

*'''HRT''' Is a Spanish F1 team. They lack funds to build competitive car and rely heavily on sponsors brought by the race drivers and the third drivers. The ircurrent drivers are [[Pedro De La Rosa]] and [[Narain Karthakain]].

*'''[[Marussia F1]]''' A Russian team owned by car manufacturer [[Marussia]], Charles Pic and Timo Glock currently race for them. WThey were originally [[Manor F1]] and then became [[Virgin|Virgin F1]].

== Drivers ==

The drivers fight for the world drivers' championship, it is currently being led by Sebastian Vettel.

== 2012 Season Schedule and Results ==

===Grands Prix===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:80%"
! Round
! Grand Prix
! Date
! Pole position
! Fastest lap
! Winning driver
! Winning constructor
|-
! 1
| Australian Grand Prix
| 18 March
| Lewis Hamilton
| Jenson Button
| Jenson Button
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 2
| Malaysian Grand Prix
| 25 March
| Lewis Hamilton
| Kimi Räikkönen
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari
|-
! 3
| Chinese Grand Prix
| 15 April
| Nico Rosberg
| Kamui Kobayashi
| Nico Rosberg
| Mercedes-Benz
|-
! 4
| Bahrain Grand Prix
| 22 April
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 5
| Spanish Grand Prix
| 13 May
| Pastor Maldonado
| Romain Grosjean
| Pastor Maldonado
| Williams F1
|-
! 6
| Monaco Grand Prix
| 27 May
| Mark Webber
| Sergio Pérez
| Mark Webber
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 7
| Canadian Grand Prix
| 10 June
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 8
| European Grand Prix
| 24 June
| Sebastian Vettel
| Nico Rosberg
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari
|-
! 9
| British Grand Prix
| 8 July
| Fernando Alonso
| Kimi Räikkönen
| Mark Webber
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 10
| German Grand Prix
| 22 July
| Fernando Alonso
| Michael Schumacher
| Fernando Alonso
| Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari
|-
! 11
| Hungarian Grand Prix
| 29 July
| Lewis Hamilton
| Sebastian Vettel
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 12
| Belgian Grand Prix
| 2 September
| Jenson Button
| Bruno Senna
| Jenson Button
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 13
| Italian Grand Prix
| 9 September
| Lewis Hamilton
| Nico Rosberg
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|-
! 14
| Singapore Grand Prix
| 23 September
| Lewis Hamilton
| Nico Hülkenberg
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 15
| Japanese Grand Prix
| 7 October
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 16
| Korean Grand Prix
| 14 October
| Mark Webber
| Mark Webber
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 17
| Indian Grand Prix
| 28 October
| Sebastian Vettel
| Jenson Button
| Sebastian Vettel
| Red Bull Racing
|-
! 18
| Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
| 4 November
| Lewis Hamilton
| Lewis Hamilton
| Kimi Räikkönen
| Lotus Renault
|-
! 19
| United States Grand Prix
| 18 November
| Lewis Hamilton
| Lewis Hamilton
| Lewis Hamilton
| McLaren-Mercedes
|
|-
! 20
| Brazilian Grand Prix
| 25 November
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

===WDC Standing===

== Controversies ==

Formula One racing has been involved in several controversies. [[Texas]] gave $300 million dollars to [[Bernie Eccelstone]] to host the [[US Grand Prix]] in [[Austin]], [[Texas]] at the [[Circuit of the Americas]] over the next 10 years.

The state of [[New Jersey]] also gave Ecclestone $300 million so it can host the [[New Jersey Grand Prix]] at [[West New York]] over the next 10 years, starting in 2013. There have been a number of reports that the 2013 [[American Grand Prix]] will not happen due to lack of payment of race fees to Bernie Eccelstone and lack of preparation. However New Jersey Governor [[Chris Christie]] has said that all is on track and that the required fees have been paid, however this conflicts with what is widely being reported in the [[European]] Press.

Another controversy was the incident involving the former head of the FIA, Max Mosley. The now defunct liberal gossip newspaper, ''News of the World'', published a story in which they accused Mosley of organizing and participating in a number of immoral and [[Nazi]]-themed events. These accusations caused a lot of concern within certain national sporting bodies and greatly damaged the road safety campaign that was being organised to save lives in developing countries as well as driving a number of key potential sponsors away from the sport. Mosley sued the newspaper for breach of confidentiality regarding private matters, and was awarded 60,000 pounds in the case. The judge stated, "I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust. ... There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S&M behaviour."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup.pdf ''Mosley vs News Group Newspapers Limited''] (PDF) ''BBC News'', retrieved December 14, 2012.</ref>

== Drivers' route to F1 ==

Almost all Formula One drivers start racing Karts in club and sub-national classes between the ages of 5 and their early teens. If they show some talent and have the funding they then progress to the national and international competitions. They then progress to either Formula Renault, Formula Ford or a National Formula 3 class if they have sufficient funding and talent. Drivers then progress to Formula 3 or GP3 which costs in the region of half a million euros per season. After this the drivers go into either [[World Series by Renault]] or [[GP2]], which can cost up to 3 million euros a season. Talented drivers also act as teams third and test drivers while they compete in these series; drivers who can bring large amounts of sponsorship money to the F1 teams are also given these roles even though they may be lacking in talent. Drivers can also get into F1 through routes such as Sports cars and touring cars (such as [[V8 Supercars]]) however this route is very uncommon now.

There are other, less common routes to a F1 race seat.. The last driver to come to formula one via this route was Paul di Resta who won the [[DTM]] title for [[Mercedes]] and was then given a race seat in the [[Mercedes]]-powered [[Force India]]. Sebastian Bourdais came to Formula 1 through IndyCar, however he failed to compete and was sacked by Toro Rosso.

== Other Information ==
While many people think that F1 is similar to [[Indycar]], Formula One takes place on [[race circuits]] and [[street circuits]], while Indycar races often take place on oval tracks.

==External Links==
*[http://www.fia.com The Sport's governing body] 
*[http://www.formula1.com/ Official Website] 
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm BBC Sport F1 - Site of the UK broadcaster] 
*[http://joesaward.wordpress.com/ Highly Respected Formula One Journalist] 
*[http://www.autosport.com Worlds leading motorsport publication] 
*[http://piranha.excom.us Vast amount of Material on F1 ] 
*[http://www.ten-tenths.com Leader in Motorsport News ]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Motor Racing]]

Formula One

2012-12-14T20:08:00Z

SharonW: /* Controversies */ clarify

Orval E. Faubus

2012-09-26T22:09:34Z

SharonW:

'''Orval Eugene Faubus''' (1910-1994) was a [[Democrat]] who served as the governor of the U.S. state of [[Arkansas]] from 1955 to 1971, best known for his unsuccessful attempt in 1957 to halt the federally-authorized desegregation of Central High School in the capital city of [[Little Rock]]. Faubus thrust himself into direct conflict with [[Republican]] [[U.S. President]] [[Dwight Eisenhower]], who federalized the [[National Guard]] to counter local resistance to the admission of nine [[African American]] children into the school.

Faubus was born in rural Combs near Huntsville in Madison County. His father, Sam, an admirer of the [[Socialism|Socialist Party]] standard bearer [[Eugene Debs]], gave Orval the middle name of "Eugene" from the railroad union president and Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Victor Debs. Faubus served in the [[United States Army]] during [[World War II]] and thereafter was a spokesman for veterans' causes.

Faubus unseated fellow Democrat Sidney Sanders McMath in the 1954 Democratic gubernatorial primary and then defeated a stronger-than-usual [[Republican]] candidate, Pratt Remmel, the mayor of Little Rock from 1951 to 1955. In 1956, he defeated James Douglas Johnson, a fellow segregationist and later a member of the Arkansas Supreme Court who became known as "Justice Jim." In 1964, Faubus defeated Republican [[Winthrop Rockefeller]], 57-43 percent, but Rockefeller polled a majority of the [[African American]] vote. Faubus stepped down in 1967, having declined to run for a seventh then two-year term. Rockefeller then defeated Democrat Jim Johnson to win the first of his two two-year terms. The office became four years effective with the 1986 election.

Faubus sought comeback attempts in 1970, 1974, and 1986, but each time he lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary elections to [[Dale L. Bumpers]], David Hampton Pryor, and [[Bill Clinton]], respectively.

In 1981-1982, Faubus served as the state's veterans affairs director under Republican Governor [[Frank D. White]], who served between the first two terms of Bill Clinton. Democrats and some [[liberal]] Republicans strongly criticized White for naming Faubus to the position.

Faubus and his first wife, the former Alta Haskins, from whom he was divorced after leaving the governorship, had one son, Farrell Faubus (1939-1976), who died in Seattle, [[Washington]] of a drug overdose.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/15/obituaries/orval-faubus-segregation-s-champion-dies-at-84.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Orval Faubus, Segregation's Champion, Dies at 84] Peter Applebome, December 15, 1994, ''New York Times'', retrieved September 26, 2012</ref> His second wife, the former Elizabeth Westmoreland, was murdered in 1983 in [[Houston]], [[Texas]]. His third wife, the former Jan Wittenburg, survived him.

In the late 1970s, Faubus penned his "scrapbook" memoirs under the title ''Down from the Hills'', a reference to the highland area of northwestern Arkansas where he was born and reared. Faubus is interred at the Combs Cemetery.

Faubus was a target for critics from the [[Civil Rights]] movement. The [[jazz]] bassist and composer [[Charles Mingus]] wrote "Fables of Faubus" in response to Faubus's support of [[segregation]]: {{cquote|Why is he so sick and ridiculous? He won't permit integrated schools. Then he's a fool!}}

==External link==
*[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Southern_Manifesto What was the Southern Manifesto?], a document written by legislators of United States Congress opposing racial integration in public places signed by 96 Democratic politicians; no Republican Senators signed.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Faubus, Orval E.}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Arkansas]]
[[Category:Arkansas Governors]]

Black hole

2012-09-22T15:24:14Z

SharonW: Undo revision 1008195 by KOdell (talk)

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
'''Black holes''' are theoretical entities popularized by pseudoscience despite their implausibility and lack of ever being directly observed. Suggested by the controversial [[theory of relativity]] (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]), black holes are postulated to be collapsed objects, usually [[stars]], which have become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius their [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, they absorb all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes are increasingly favored by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the [[New York Times]] and glossy magazines, as well as science fiction writers. As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these [[Singularity|singularities]] impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes described with classical mechanics only have three intrinsic properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Quantum mechanics, which postulates that information loss cannot occur in a black hole, suggests properties beyond the three suggested by classical physics. Using this description, information must also be emitted by black holes. This radiation, referred to as Hawking Radiation, is thermal radiation that has currently only been described mathematically.

Although radiation from inside the event horizon has not yet been observed, there is much phenomenon that occurs outside the horizon due to the black hole. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Methods of Observation==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, their nature is determined from phenomena outside of the Schwarzschild radius. Scientists have located and observed objects theorized to be black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. Wobble effects, however, cannot be used to conclusively prove the existence of a black hole. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that when described by quantum mechanics, they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Scientists, who have been extremely eager to promote the idea of black hole existence, have shown a strong aversion to the white hole theory, even though, like a white hole, a black hole has never been observed directly. This may reflect an anti-creation bias on the part of scientists who are uncomfortable with the idea that matter and energy can be created outside of what scientific theories dictate should happen.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Senate Elections 2012

2012-09-21T21:51:53Z

SharonW: /* Toss Up */

'''2012 United States Senate elections''' to be held November 6, 2012 includes [[Republican]], Democrat and Independent candidates vying for six-year terms and a seat in the 113th Congress. [[Democrat]]s need to defend 21 seats and Republicans need only to defend 10 seats. Two seats held by Independents are up for election and lean Democrat: Bernie Sanders seeks re-election and Joe Lieberman is retiring.

Democrats' majority status and [[Harry Reid]]'s Senate leadership are at stake. Some Democrats are growing uncomfortable as they decline to endorse [[Obama]]'s shift on [[gay marriage]]. Of the 33 Democrats who have won their primaries, only 20 have clearly stated their support for gay marriage while 8 have stated their opposition. "Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform." [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227007-vulnerable-democratic-senators-balk-at-obamas-endorsement-of-gay-marriage]

As of September 20, the [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecasts a 48-44 split favoring democrats with 8 toss-up seats, but that includes a questionable claim that Democrats will likely hold on to the [[New Mexico]] seat. In these key states, most of which are listed as "toss-up" or even leaning Democrat, the Democrat candidate will probably not win unless he garners more votes than [[Obama]] in the state:

*Connecticut
*Indiana
*Massachusetts
*Montana (Rehberg-R v. Tester-D)
*Nevada
*North Dakota
*Virginia
*Wisconsin

==Senate Contests==

Ratings originally based on [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecast; forecasts revised here on September 9, 2012.

===Safe Republican===

'''* Mississippi'''

Republican [[Roger Wicker]] is the incumbent. He will face Democrat Albert N. Gore.

'''* Tennessee'''

Republican [[Bob Corker]] is the incumbent. He will face conservative Democrat Mark Clayton. Clayton will not have any help from his party.

'''* Texas'''

Republican [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] is retiring. Tea party backed [[Ted Cruz]] will face Paul Sadler, who won his primary runoff for the Democrat nomination. Sadler is a backer of [[Obamacare]] and [[Planned Parenthood]].

'''* Utah'''

Republican [[Orrin Hatch]] is the incumbent. Pete Ashdown is the Democrat challenger.

'''* Wyoming'''

Republican [[John Barrasso]] is the incumbent. He will face Democrat Tim Chestnut.

===Likely Republican===

'''* Nebraska'''

Democrat [[Ben Nelson]] is retiring. [[Pro-life]] [[Deb Fischer]] defeated [[RINO]] Jon Bruning for the Republican nomination; and will face Democrat Bob Kerrey.

===Leans Republican===

'''* Arizona'''

Republican [[Jon Kyl]] is retiring. Democrat Richard Carmona will face Republican [[Jeff Flake]]. Flake is endorsed by the [[Senate Conservatives Fund]].

'''* Indiana'''

Tea Party-backed Republican [[Richard Mourdock]] will face Democrat Joe Donnelly after defeating 35-year incumbent Republican [[Richard Lugar]].

'''* Nevada'''

Republican [[Dean Heller]] was appointed in 2011 to replace [[John Ensign]] and is considered the incumbent. He faces Rep. Shelley Berkley who cruised to victory in the Democratic primary. Polling has Heller with a lead of, on average, 4 points though he generally fails to break 50%, a crucial benchmark for an incumbent.

'''* Wisconsin'''

Democrat [[Herb Kohl]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tammy Baldwin]] will face Republican [[Tommy Thompson]].

===Toss Up===

'''* Florida'''

Democrat [[Bill Nelson]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Representative Connie Mack. Polls show Nelson below the 50 percent mark, which is bad news for an incumbent and Nelson cannot win if Romney takes Florida, a must-win state for him. As of September 2012, Nelson leads Mack by about 8 percentage points, depending on the poll.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/fl/florida_senate_mack_vs_nelson-1847.html Florida Senate - Mack vs. Nelson] realclearpolitics.com, retrieved September 14, 2012</ref>

'''* Missouri'''

Democrat [[Claire McCaskill]] is the incumbent and faces [[movement conservative]] [[Todd Akin]], the [[Republican]] nominee. Since Akin's comments regarding pregnancy and "legitimate rape," Akin went from leading McCaskill by 6 points in prior polls to trailing her by 10 points in a Rasmussen Poll from August 22. However, the gap has lessened for Akin, and he trails by 6 points in the September 12th poll.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/missouri/election_2012_missouri_senate Election 2012: Missouri Senate] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>

'''* Massachusetts'''

Republican [[Scott Brown]] is the incumbent, and will face Democrat [[Elizabeth Warren]]. Polling has this race in a tie.

'''* Michigan'''

Democrat [[Debbie Stabenow]] is the incumbent and will face Republican [[Pete Hoekstra]].

'''* Montana'''

Democrat [[Jon Tester]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Denny Rehberg]]. As of August 21, Rehberg leads 47% to 43%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/montana/election_2012_montana_senate Election 2012: Montana Senate] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>

'''* North Dakota'''

Democrat [[Kent Conrad]] is retiring. July polling has Republican Rick Berg leading Democrat Heidi Heitkamp by +5.

'''* Ohio'''

Democrat [[Sherrod Brown]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Josh Mandel]]. Mandel has the backing of Senator [[Jim Demint]]. Brown has the backing of [[George Soros]], the [[SEIU]] and the former [[ACORN]].

'''* Virginia'''

Democrat [[Jim Webb]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tim Kaine]] will face Republican [[George Allen]]. Polling has this race tied and may come down to which presidential candidate carries Virginia in November.

===Leans Democrat===

'''* Connecticut'''

Independent [[Joe Lieberman]] is retiring. Democrat Chris Murphy will face Republican challenger [[Linda McMahon]].

'''* Hawaii'''

Democrat [[Daniel Akaka]] is retiring. Democrat Mazie Hirono will face former Republican Governor [[Linda Lingle]].

'''* New Mexico'''

Democrat [[Jeff Bingaman]] is retiring. Republican Heather Wilson will face Democrat Martin Heinrich.

===Likely Democrat===

'''* New Jersey'''

Democrat [[Bob Menendez]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Joe Kyrillos .

'''* Pennsylvania'''

Democrat [[Bob Casey, Jr.]] is the incumbent. 7 Republicans declared. [[Pro-choice | Fake Pro-life]] Casey Jr. is a strong defender of Obama and [[Harry Reid]].

'''* Washington'''

Democrat [[Maria Cantwell]] is the incumbent. [[Michael Baumgartner]] is the Republican challenger.

'''* West Virginia'''

Democrat [[Joe Manchin]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican John Raese. Barack Obama polls so poorly in this state that Manchin refuses to say who he'll vote for President. [http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/manchin-won-t-endorse-obama-charleston-paper-won-t-endorse-manchin-20120425]

===Safe Democrat===

'''* California'''

Democrat [[Dianne Feinstein]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Elizabeth Emken

'''* Delaware'''

Democrat [[Tom Carper]] is the incumbent. Businessman Kevin Wade is the Republican candidate.

'''* Maryland'''

Democrat [[Ben Cardin]] is the incumbent. He will face former Secret Service agent and Republican [[Dan Bongino]].

'''* Minnesota'''

Democrat [[Amy Klobuchar]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican [[Kurt Bills]].

'''* New York'''

Democrat [[Kirsten Gillibrand]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Wendy Long.

'''* Rhode Island'''

Democrat [[Sheldon Whitehouse]] is the incumbent. Republican Barry Hinckley the challenger.

'''* Vermont'''

Independent [[Bernie Sanders]] who caucuses with the Democrats is the incumbent. John MacGovern [R] is the Republican challenger.

===Likely Independent===

'''* Maine'''

Republican [[Olympia Snowe]] is retiring. Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charlie Summers will face Independent former Gov. [[Angus King]]. Polling predicts King will be the victor. King's positions are viewed as generally liberal leaning, and he is being treated as the ''de facto'' Democrat by the Republican campaign. It is unclear with which party he would caucus, however.

==States without a Senate race in 2012==
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont.

==See also==
* [[Presidential Election 2012]]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]
[[category:Obama Presidency]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Senate Elections 2012

2012-09-21T21:47:18Z

SharonW: /* Toss Up */ update Missouri

'''2012 United States Senate elections''' to be held November 6, 2012 includes [[Republican]], Democrat and Independent candidates vying for six-year terms and a seat in the 113th Congress. [[Democrat]]s need to defend 21 seats and Republicans need only to defend 10 seats. Two seats held by Independents are up for election and lean Democrat: Bernie Sanders seeks re-election and Joe Lieberman is retiring.

Democrats' majority status and [[Harry Reid]]'s Senate leadership are at stake. Some Democrats are growing uncomfortable as they decline to endorse [[Obama]]'s shift on [[gay marriage]]. Of the 33 Democrats who have won their primaries, only 20 have clearly stated their support for gay marriage while 8 have stated their opposition. "Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform." [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227007-vulnerable-democratic-senators-balk-at-obamas-endorsement-of-gay-marriage]

As of September 20, the [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecasts a 48-44 split favoring democrats with 8 toss-up seats, but that includes a questionable claim that Democrats will likely hold on to the [[New Mexico]] seat. In these key states, most of which are listed as "toss-up" or even leaning Democrat, the Democrat candidate will probably not win unless he garners more votes than [[Obama]] in the state:

*Connecticut
*Indiana
*Massachusetts
*Montana (Rehberg-R v. Tester-D)
*Nevada
*North Dakota
*Virginia
*Wisconsin

==Senate Contests==

Ratings originally based on [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecast; forecasts revised here on September 9, 2012.

===Safe Republican===

'''* Mississippi'''

Republican [[Roger Wicker]] is the incumbent. He will face Democrat Albert N. Gore.

'''* Tennessee'''

Republican [[Bob Corker]] is the incumbent. He will face conservative Democrat Mark Clayton. Clayton will not have any help from his party.

'''* Texas'''

Republican [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] is retiring. Tea party backed [[Ted Cruz]] will face Paul Sadler, who won his primary runoff for the Democrat nomination. Sadler is a backer of [[Obamacare]] and [[Planned Parenthood]].

'''* Utah'''

Republican [[Orrin Hatch]] is the incumbent. Pete Ashdown is the Democrat challenger.

'''* Wyoming'''

Republican [[John Barrasso]] is the incumbent. He will face Democrat Tim Chestnut.

===Likely Republican===

'''* Nebraska'''

Democrat [[Ben Nelson]] is retiring. [[Pro-life]] [[Deb Fischer]] defeated [[RINO]] Jon Bruning for the Republican nomination; and will face Democrat Bob Kerrey.

===Leans Republican===

'''* Arizona'''

Republican [[Jon Kyl]] is retiring. Democrat Richard Carmona will face Republican [[Jeff Flake]]. Flake is endorsed by the [[Senate Conservatives Fund]].

'''* Indiana'''

Tea Party-backed Republican [[Richard Mourdock]] will face Democrat Joe Donnelly after defeating 35-year incumbent Republican [[Richard Lugar]].

'''* Nevada'''

Republican [[Dean Heller]] was appointed in 2011 to replace [[John Ensign]] and is considered the incumbent. He faces Rep. Shelley Berkley who cruised to victory in the Democratic primary. Polling has Heller with a lead of, on average, 4 points though he generally fails to break 50%, a crucial benchmark for an incumbent.

'''* Wisconsin'''

Democrat [[Herb Kohl]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tammy Baldwin]] will face Republican [[Tommy Thompson]].

===Toss Up===

'''* Florida'''

Democrat [[Bill Nelson]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Representative Connie Mack. Polls show Nelson below the 50 percent mark, which is bad news for an incumbent and Nelson cannot win if Romney takes Florida, a must-win state for him. As of September 2012, Nelson leads Mack by about 8 percentage points, depending on the poll.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/fl/florida_senate_mack_vs_nelson-1847.html Florida Senate - Mack vs. Nelson] realclearpolitics.com, retrieved September 14, 2012</ref>

'''* Missouri'''

Democrat [[Claire McCaskill]] is the incumbent and faces [[movement conservative]] [[Todd Akin]], the [[Republican]] nominee. Since Akin's comments regarding pregnancy and "legitimate rape," Akin went from leading McCaskill by 6 points in prior polls to trailing her by 10 points in a Rasmussen Poll from August 22. However, the gap has lessened for Akin, and he trails by 6 points in the September 12th poll.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/missouri/election_2012_missouri_senate Election 2012: Missouri Senate] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>

'''* Massachusetts'''

Republican [[Scott Brown]] is the incumbent, and will face Democrat [[Elizabeth Warren]]. Polling has this race in a tie.

'''* Michigan'''

Democrat [[Debbie Stabenow]] is the incumbent and will face Republican [[Pete Hoekstra]].

'''* Montana'''

Democrat [[Jon Tester]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Denny Rehberg]]. June 2012 polling has Rehberg holding a 2-point lead.

'''* North Dakota'''

Democrat [[Kent Conrad]] is retiring. July polling has Republican Rick Berg leading Democrat Heidi Heitkamp by +5.

'''* Ohio'''

Democrat [[Sherrod Brown]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Josh Mandel]]. Mandel has the backing of Senator [[Jim Demint]]. Brown has the backing of [[George Soros]], the [[SEIU]] and the former [[ACORN]].

'''* Virginia'''

Democrat [[Jim Webb]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tim Kaine]] will face Republican [[George Allen]]. Polling has this race tied and may come down to which presidential candidate carries Virginia in November.

===Leans Democrat===

'''* Connecticut'''

Independent [[Joe Lieberman]] is retiring. Democrat Chris Murphy will face Republican challenger [[Linda McMahon]].

'''* Hawaii'''

Democrat [[Daniel Akaka]] is retiring. Democrat Mazie Hirono will face former Republican Governor [[Linda Lingle]].

'''* New Mexico'''

Democrat [[Jeff Bingaman]] is retiring. Republican Heather Wilson will face Democrat Martin Heinrich.

===Likely Democrat===

'''* New Jersey'''

Democrat [[Bob Menendez]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Joe Kyrillos .

'''* Pennsylvania'''

Democrat [[Bob Casey, Jr.]] is the incumbent. 7 Republicans declared. [[Pro-choice | Fake Pro-life]] Casey Jr. is a strong defender of Obama and [[Harry Reid]].

'''* Washington'''

Democrat [[Maria Cantwell]] is the incumbent. [[Michael Baumgartner]] is the Republican challenger.

'''* West Virginia'''

Democrat [[Joe Manchin]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican John Raese. Barack Obama polls so poorly in this state that Manchin refuses to say who he'll vote for President. [http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/manchin-won-t-endorse-obama-charleston-paper-won-t-endorse-manchin-20120425]

===Safe Democrat===

'''* California'''

Democrat [[Dianne Feinstein]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Elizabeth Emken

'''* Delaware'''

Democrat [[Tom Carper]] is the incumbent. Businessman Kevin Wade is the Republican candidate.

'''* Maryland'''

Democrat [[Ben Cardin]] is the incumbent. He will face former Secret Service agent and Republican [[Dan Bongino]].

'''* Minnesota'''

Democrat [[Amy Klobuchar]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican [[Kurt Bills]].

'''* New York'''

Democrat [[Kirsten Gillibrand]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Wendy Long.

'''* Rhode Island'''

Democrat [[Sheldon Whitehouse]] is the incumbent. Republican Barry Hinckley the challenger.

'''* Vermont'''

Independent [[Bernie Sanders]] who caucuses with the Democrats is the incumbent. John MacGovern [R] is the Republican challenger.

===Likely Independent===

'''* Maine'''

Republican [[Olympia Snowe]] is retiring. Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charlie Summers will face Independent former Gov. [[Angus King]]. Polling predicts King will be the victor. King's positions are viewed as generally liberal leaning, and he is being treated as the ''de facto'' Democrat by the Republican campaign. It is unclear with which party he would caucus, however.

==States without a Senate race in 2012==
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont.

==See also==
* [[Presidential Election 2012]]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]
[[category:Obama Presidency]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Daniel Akaka

2012-09-21T21:35:27Z

SharonW: update about retirement

{{Officeholder
|name=Daniel Akaka
|image=Akaka.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Mary Mildred Chong
|religion=United Church of Christ
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Hawaii
|terms=May 16, 1990-present
|preceded=Spark Matsunaga
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Hawaii
|district=2nd
|terms=January 3, 1977 – May 15, 1990
|preceded=Spark Matsunaga
|former=n
|succeeded=Patsy Mink
}}
}}

'''Daniel Akaka''', born September 11, 1924 (age {{age|1924|9|11}}) is the Democratic junior [[United States Senator]] from [[Hawaii]]. He was elected to the House of Representatives from the Second Congressional District of Hawaii in 1971, and was reelected until 1988. Akaka was appointed to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat left empty by the death of former United States Senator [[Spark M. Matsunaga]].

In April 2006, he was selected by ''[[Time Magazine|Time]]'' magazine as one of "America's Five Worst Senators." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1183980,00.html</ref> The article criticized him for mainly authoring minor legislation, calling him "master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee."

During his 2006 Senate reelection campaign, Akaka faced a primary challenge by Congressman [[Ed Case]]. Akaka won the Democratic primary by eight percentage points and went on to win the general election by twenty-six points.

Daniel Akaka votes with the Democrats 96.1% of the time. <ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000069/</ref> In February 2009, he voted for [[President Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]]. "This vital legislation will create jobs." <ref>http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Home&month=2&release_id=2561&year=2009</ref> In November 2009 Akaka stated that he was not aware of the [[Constitution]] giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as [[health care]] bills in both the House and Senate require. <ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57024</ref>

Akaka announced on March 2, 2011 that he would not seek another term as senator.<ref>[http://www.rollcall.com/news/Daniel-Akaka-Retiring-203790-1.html Sen. Daniel Akaka Retiring] Steven T. Dennis, March 2, 2011, ''RollCall'', retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>

==Committee Membership==
As of 2009, Akaka serves on the following Senate committees:
*Armed Services
*Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
*Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
*Indian Affairs
*Veterans' Affairs
*Congressional Task Force on Native Hawaiian Issues

He previously served on the Select Committee on Ethics.

==External Links==
*[http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm Official Site]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Daniel_Akaka.htm Akaka On the Issues]
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000069, Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]

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

[[Category: United States Senators]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Akaka, Daniel}}
[[Category: 111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Linda Lingle

2012-09-21T21:21:13Z

SharonW: update to include Senate race

[[Image:Linda Lingle.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Linda Lingle''' was the sixth [[Governor]] of [[Hawaii]]. A [[Republican]], she was first elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. She made history as the first female governor of the Aloha State.

In October 2011, Lingle announced her candidacy for the seat of retiring Senator [[Daniel Akaka]]. She is running against Democratic candidate Mazie Hironi.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lingle, Linda}}
[[Category:Hawaii Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:20:48Z

SharonW: update Pennsylvania

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's poll on September 14, 2012 had Romney at 51% to Obama's 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president Election 2012: North Carolina President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process. As of September 20, 2012, Obama leads Romney 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/nevada/election_2012_nevada_president Election 2012: Nevada President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state. Obama is ahead of Romney 48% to 42%, as of Rasmussen's last poll, taken in July 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/election_2012_michigan_president Election 2012: Michigan President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|Obama holds a substantial lead over Romney, 52% to 38%, according to Rasmussen's last poll, taken August 21, 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2012_new_mexico_president Election 2012: New Mexico President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012.</ref>
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref> As of September 21, 2012, Obama leads Romney by a 51% to 39% margin.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2012_pennsylvania_president Election 2012: Pennsylvania President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:18:23Z

SharonW: update New Mexico

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's poll on September 14, 2012 had Romney at 51% to Obama's 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president Election 2012: North Carolina President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process. As of September 20, 2012, Obama leads Romney 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/nevada/election_2012_nevada_president Election 2012: Nevada President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state. Obama is ahead of Romney 48% to 42%, as of Rasmussen's last poll, taken in July 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/election_2012_michigan_president Election 2012: Michigan President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|Obama holds a substantial lead over Romney, 52% to 38%, according to Rasmussen's last poll, taken August 21, 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2012_new_mexico_president Election 2012: New Mexico President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012.</ref>
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:15:21Z

SharonW: update Michigan

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's poll on September 14, 2012 had Romney at 51% to Obama's 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president Election 2012: North Carolina President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process. As of September 20, 2012, Obama leads Romney 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/nevada/election_2012_nevada_president Election 2012: Nevada President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state. Obama is ahead of Romney 48% to 42%, as of Rasmussen's last poll, taken in July 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/election_2012_michigan_president Election 2012: Michigan President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:11:07Z

SharonW: update Nevada

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's poll on September 14, 2012 had Romney at 51% to Obama's 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president Election 2012: North Carolina President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process. As of September 20, 2012, Obama leads Romney 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/nevada/election_2012_nevada_president Election 2012: Nevada President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:07:22Z

SharonW: update North Carolina

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's poll on September 14, 2012 had Romney at 51% to Obama's 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president Election 2012: North Carolina President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:04:48Z

SharonW: update New Hampshire

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts. He holds a 3-point lead (48% to 45%) over Obama, as of September 19, 2012<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_president Election 2012: New Hampshire President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's most recent poll of the state had Romney up, 49-44.
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T19:02:40Z

SharonW: update Florida

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney;<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref> however, as of September 13, 2012, Obama held a 2-point lead, 46% to 46%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/election_2012_florida_president Election 2012: Florida President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's most recent poll of the state had Romney up, 49-44.
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T18:59:19Z

SharonW: update Virginia

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken September 14th gave Obama a 1 point lead, 49% to 48%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president Election 2012: Virginia President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney.<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's most recent poll of the state had Romney up, 49-44.
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T18:48:56Z

SharonW: update Ohio

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic. As of September 13, 2012, Romney (46%) and Obama (47%) were virtually tied.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president Election 2012: Ohio President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken August 7th gave Obama a 2 point lead.
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney.<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's most recent poll of the state had Romney up, 49-44.
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T18:29:34Z

SharonW: update Iowa

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties. Since states that consistently express a preference for either the Democratic of Republican candidate are usually referred to as [[blue state|blue states]] and [[red state|red states]], respectively, these states are also called "purple states" in order to highlight their mixed demographical nature. '''It is expected that hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads by [[Super PAC]]s will be spent in these swing states in the fall of 2012'''.

Here are the key swing states for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], for a total of 100 electoral votes, all of which were won by Obama in 2008:<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/26/national/a080145D80.DTL#ixzz1w1roz7XG</ref>
*Colorado
*Florida
*Iowa
*Nevada
*New Hampshire
*North Carolina
*Ohio
*Virginia
A total of 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Obama won with 95 additional electoral votes in 2008. Assuming that Republicans win Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, '''''this entire election could be decided in only Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio'''''.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Expected winner 2012
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Ohio
|Toss up
|4.6%
|Ohio voted Republican in the 2010 elections, but the public unions repealed the collective bargaining reforms by popular vote. This indicates heavy union influence, a plus for Obama as unions vote heavily Democratic.
|18
|-
|Iowa
|Toss-up
|9.5%
|Mitt Romney leads Obama 47% to 44% as of September 2012.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/election_2012_iowa_president Election 2012: Iowa President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|6
|-
|Colorado
|Toss-up
|9%
|[[Pro-life]], pro-[[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]]'s phenomenal success for the Denver Broncos helped improve the culture there. As of September 2012, Romney leads Obama, 47% to 45%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president Election 2012: Colorado President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|9
|-
|Virginia
|Toss-up
|6%
|Elected a Republican governor, [[Bob McDonnell]], in 2009. In the 2011 elections the Republican party took the state senate, giving them control over both houses of the legislature. A Rasmussen Reports survey of Virginia taken August 7th gave Obama a 2 point lead.
|13
|-
|Florida
|Toss-up
|2.8%
|Elected a Republican for both governor and Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] is currently (August 2012) very unpopular in the state. Obama's approval in the state is below 50%. Florida is a must win for Romney.<ref>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/sept-11-florida-a-true-must-win-for-romney/</ref>
|29
|-
|New Hampshire
|Leaning Democrat
|9.6%
|Romney has some roots here and was governor of nearby Massachusetts
|4
|-
|North Carolina
|Leaning Republican win due to [[same-sex marriage]] issue.
|0.3%
|The current [[Democratic]] governor, [[Bev Perdue]], is highly unpopular and polling badly, especially in the wake of recent scandals among her staff. Rasmussen's most recent poll of the state had Romney up, 49-44.
|15
|-
|Nevada
|Leaning Democrat; polls have shown Obama to have a 4-5 point lead.
|12.5%
|A recent special election for the state's 2nd congressional district was predicted to be competitive but resulted in a decisive victory for [[Republican]] [[Mark Amodei]]. [[Harry Reid]] won reelection in 2010 despite [[Tea Party]] opposition, but this may have been due to discrepancies and corruption in the voting process.
|6
|}

Additional states that Obama carried by a wide margin in 2008 might become possibilities for a Romney victory in 2012 if he improves in the polls:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!State
!Margin of [[Obama]]'s win in 2008
!Indicators
!Electoral Votes in 2012
|-
|Michigan
|16%
|Mitt Romney, though not ideal for the average conservative, grew up in Michigan and could put it into play. His father, [[George Romney]], served as governor of the state.
|16
|-
|New Mexico
|15%
|
|5
|-
|Pennsylvania
|10%
|Obama's has had high disapproval ratings here: 54%, and [[Republicans]] swept the elections in 2010; also, Obama polled poorly here in 2008 against [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653 Quinnipiac poll done late September 2011]</ref>
|20
|-
|Wisconsin
|13.9%
|Elected Republicans to the state legislature, governor's office, and Senate in 2010. Despite much complaining by Democrats and their [[labor union]] allies, they failed to recall enough republican legislators for a majority, failed to defeat Justice David Prosser in the Supreme Court election. The final blow that put Wisconsin in play for the 2012 election was when Governor Scott Walker defeated his recall election by a wider margin than he was originally elected in 2010. The selection of Wisconsin Congressman [[Paul Ryan]] as Romney's running mate may also help him in Wisconsin and vie-presidential nominees tend to boost the ticket in their home state. While Romney did receive a bump after his choice of Ryan, as of September 2012, he was slightly trailing Obama, 46% to 49%.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president Election 2012: Wisconsin President] rasmussenreports.com, retrieved September 21, 2012</ref>
|10
|}

== Effect on Policy ==

Swing state politics is having an enormous influence on policy: [[Obama]]'s abrupt change in [[deportation]] policy was probably due to how [[Mitt Romney]] has erased Obama's lead in the key swing state of [[Colorado]], and narrowed the lead in [[Nevada]] and [[Virginia]], all of which have large [[Hispanic]] populations.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states</ref>

==2008 Swing States==
*[[Colorado]]
*[[Florida]]
*[[Iowa]]
*[[Michigan]]
*[[Minnesota]]
*[[Missouri]]
*[[New Hampshire]]
*[[New Mexico]]
*[[Ohio]]
*[[Pennsylvania]]
*[[Wisconsin]]
*[[Virginia]]

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/95467/obama-mccain-elections-gop-democrats Analysis of Electoral College and popular vote]
*[http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-claims-slight-edge-15-battleground-states-164545408.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGP5vJPnRUA.Q3QtDMD July polling: Romney leads Obama, 51 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2012-09-21T18:23:36Z

SharonW: update Colorado

Swing state

2012-09-21T18:20:46Z

SharonW: update Wisconsin

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-09-14T21:01:45Z

SharonW:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

:When you refer to the ice mummy, is this the famous one? ie. Ötzi? Because if it is, closer examination of the body has revealed that he actually died of a head injury, and an arrow embedded in his back, not the rain. Other evidence (the blood of three or so individuals other than himself on the corpse and his weapons) indicates that he was killed in warfare, and therefore is totally unrelated to the flood. I'll just double check the sources then, if no one else objects, I'll remove it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:48, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

::I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this. But let's review and discuss more information deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I found a few recent sources. A ''National Geographic'' article from November 2011 gives the cause of death as an arrow (and possibly a blow to the head), the website of the museum where he is kept [inhttp://www.iceman.it/en/how-oetzi-died] gives the arrow and head injury (this isn't a great source to be honest), a Guardian article from 2002 gives some details about the wounds [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/21/humanities.research1] and the abstract for a paper indicates that the arrow wound might have healed slightly before death[http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/26/rsif.2012.0174]. This is good enough for me. I will leave it a while anyway to see if anything else comes up.

::::Right, done it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 19:45, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Ok that information just got put back in. I have given a bunch of sources, all more recent than the source in the article, which give a very different explanation of what happened. I would appreciate if you would have a look at them and discuss the issue before reverting what I did. thanks a lot, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:29, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Your additional information tends to reinforce the accuracy of the entry. The ice mummy was likely killed by something, it doesn't matter what, and then was remarkably preserved by a massive ice storm that was part of the [[Great Flood]]. Without the Great Flood, he would not have been so well perserved. I'll restore the information -- please feel free to add your cites to reinforce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::ok, I'll leave it then.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:18, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-09-14T20:57:14Z

SharonW: prepare to archive

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

First of all, without getting into uncertainties about measurement, anyone can get an approximation of pi as 3; anyone can take a string and measure the diameter of a circle or sphere and compare it to the circumfrence. That in itself is unremarkable. -RaymondW

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? As in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yes, waves are subject to gravity. A good example is gravitational lensing, in which gravity deflects the path of electromagnetic ''waves''. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict this, although only general relativity's predictions are consistent with the data. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gravity-induced+quantum+interference&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=DohdT7f1IoGogwelhfGhCw&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA In quantum mechanics gravity can also cause interference]. So, yes, gravity does indeed act on waves. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:35, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

:When you refer to the ice mummy, is this the famous one? ie. Ötzi? Because if it is, closer examination of the body has revealed that he actually died of a head injury, and an arrow embedded in his back, not the rain. Other evidence (the blood of three or so individuals other than himself on the corpse and his weapons) indicates that he was killed in warfare, and therefore is totally unrelated to the flood. I'll just double check the sources then, if no one else objects, I'll remove it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:48, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

::I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this. But let's review and discuss more information deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I found a few recent sources. A ''National Geographic'' article from November 2011 gives the cause of death as an arrow (and possibly a blow to the head), the website of the museum where he is kept [inhttp://www.iceman.it/en/how-oetzi-died] gives the arrow and head injury (this isn't a great source to be honest), a Guardian article from 2002 gives some details about the wounds [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/21/humanities.research1] and the abstract for a paper indicates that the arrow wound might have healed slightly before death[http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/04/26/rsif.2012.0174]. This is good enough for me. I will leave it a while anyway to see if anything else comes up.

::::Right, done it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 19:45, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Ok that information just got put back in. I have given a bunch of sources, all more recent than the source in the article, which give a very different explanation of what happened. I would appreciate if you would have a look at them and discuss the issue before reverting what I did. thanks a lot, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:29, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Your additional information tends to reinforce the accuracy of the entry. The ice mummy was likely killed by something, it doesn't matter what, and then was remarkably preserved by a massive ice storm that was part of the [[Great Flood]]. Without the Great Flood, he would not have been so well perserved. I'll restore the information -- please feel free to add your cites to reinforce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::ok, I'll leave it then.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:18, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

A. Roswell Thompson

2012-09-14T18:06:39Z

SharonW:

'''Addison Roswell Thompson''' (November 14, 1911 - February 15, 1976) [http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi] was a minor segregationist candidate for [[governor]] of the U.S. state of [[Louisiana]], and for [[mayor]] of [[New Orleans]], during the 1960s and first half of the 1970s. He was described in his ''New Orleans Times-Picayune'' obituary as "a self-proclaimed racist and wizard of the [[Ku Klux Klan]]." Thompson ran a small taxicab company until he retired in 1972, but became known through his quixotic political campaigns.Thompson obituary, New Orleans Times-Picayune, February 16, 1976; p. 1, 12;http://www.jfk-online.com/jpshscacs77b.htmlref> Thompson declared himself the Imperial Wizard of his own one-man KKK, the Universal Klan or the Fraternal Order of the Klan, as Thompson often termed it.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2-84635lwKYC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=a+roswell+thompson&source=web&ots=x7GQssWlS1&sig=ybubCwwMC0CWZHfmLPq34WrK4woThompson sought the governorship thirty-two years before former Klansman [[David Duke]], running as the unendorsed Republican candidate, lost the 1991 general election to Democrat [[Edwin Edwards|Edwin Washington Edwards]], who secured his fourth nonconsecutive term in office. Thompson ran in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in December 1959 and December 1963, having polled 4,000 and 3,343 votes, respectively, finishing with less than 1 percent of the vote. The winners of those elections were [[Jimmie Davis]] and [[John J. McKeithen]], respectively. Then Thompson filed in the Democratic mayoral primaries of 1965 and 1969, having received 2,121 votes (1.3 percent) and 1,248 ballots (0.73 percent), respectively.http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-02-05/news_feat.htmlref> The winners of those elections were the incumbent Victor H. Schiro and Maurice "Moon" Landrieu, respectively. He ran again in 1973, when Landrieu, who forged a coalition of African Americans and white liberals, handily secured a second term.Elections Statistics, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1969, and 1973, Baton Rouge: Louisiana Secretary of StateIn all, Thompson ran for office fourteen times as an avowed Klansman.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2-84635lwKYC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=a+roswell+thompson&source=web&ots=x7GQssWlS1&sig=ybubCwwMC0CWZHfmLPq34WrK4woIn February 1967, Thompson served as master of ceremonies for a meeting of the Crescent City chapter of the National States' Rights Party. The main speaker at the meeting was the anti-Semitic and anti-African-American J. B. Stoner (1924-2005) of Tennessee and Georgia, a strong critic of both national parties in regard to race relations in the United States.''New Orleans Times-Picayune'', February 20, 1967; section 3, p. 16; http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7927On January 19, 1972, Thompson and his friend-mentor, the late Colonel Rene LaCoste, had a run-in with a group of Black Panthers at the Robert E. Lee Monument in New Orleans. The two segregationists were there to celebrate Lee's birthday.{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2-84635lwKYC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=a+roswell+thompson&source=web&ots=x7GQssWlS1&sig=ybubCwwMC0CWZHfmLPq34WrK4wo#PPA152,M1Thompson's last political race was in November 1975, when he entered the first ever jungle primary for governor. Still filing as a Democrat, Thompson polled .4 of 1 percent, as the incumbent Democratic Governor Edwin Edwards coasted to a second second consecutive term.{{cite web|url=http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/Expenditures/1968-1976Gov$.docThompson was never reconciled to the racial integration of American society.

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Thompson, A. Roswell}}
[[Category:Political Figures]]
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Beatnik

2012-09-14T17:57:52Z

SharonW: format

Beatnik is a term for an anti-materialistic culture of people in the late 1950s, analogous to [[hippies]] a decade later. The term was coined by Herb Caen on April 2, 1958 in an article in the ''San Francisco Chronicle''. He modified an earlier, more positive term Beat Generation and added the -nik suffix from [[Sputnik]], which had launched in the prior six months.

Beatniks were associated with poetry and jazz. [[Jack Kerouac]]'s novel ''[[On the Road]]'' was viewed by many as the Beat Generation's manifesto.
[[Category:culture]]

The Town and the City

2012-09-14T17:40:54Z

SharonW: the article is about the book; these details are included in the article about the author

'''''The Town and the City''''' is the first published novel of the American author [[Jack Kerouac]].
It is thought to have been inspired by his father's death.

The novel is Kerouac's longest. Before writing it, he made a decision not to stop until he had completed 300,000 words. It was published in 1950 by Harcourt Brace.

Kerouac wrote the novel over a period of two years, keeping a diary that detailed much of his philosophical and literary troubles during this time. He relied upon the works of [[Fyodor Dostoevksy]], calling Dostoevksy's wisdom "the highest wisdom in the world" after he grew tired with the essays of the "too self-conscious" [[Leo Tolstoy]], for spiritual guidance.

It was aptly pointed out that Kerouac relied heavily upon the influence of [[Thomas Wolfe]] while writing the novel, and many comparisons can be made between it and the works of Wolfe. Many critics, however, suggested that Kerouac, far from merely emulating Wolfe, had surpassed him.

The novel is about a large family, (surname Martin) and features the five sons and three daughters of the family growing up, and being drawn from their semi-rural life in Galloway, to the symbol of capitalism and urbanity - the "melting pot" - that was New York, all in search of fame and identity.

Kerouac applied many of his own character traits to the sons of the family, though he can be most closely compared with Peter Martin. Much of the events and conversations that happen in the novel and to Peter have their parallel in Kerouac's own life. Several of his friends appear in the work, including the writer [[Allen Ginsberg]] and his own father, as George Martin.

[[The Town and The City]] takes the form of a bildungsroman. It is an impeccable first novel, written when Kerouac was in his early twenties, and was succeeded by Kerouac's most famous work ''[[On the Road]]'' - the most perfectly appropriate novel to serve this role.

His most conventional novel, it is also the most revealing. It allows one to assess the mind of Kerouac before he had developed (and subsequently become associated) with his own 'spontaneous prose' style and the Beat Generation movement he would come to lead (though not, entirely, voluntarily).
[[Category: literature]]
[[category:novels]]

Jack Kerouac

2012-09-14T17:33:08Z

SharonW: name format

'''Jean-Louis "Jack" Kerouac''' (March 12, 1922 - October 21, 1969) was one of [[United States of America|America's]] most well known writers of the 1950s. He wrote such famous books as ''Big Sur'', ''The Dharma Bums'', ''Doctor Sax'', ''Desolation Angels'', ''Visions of Gerard'', the novella ''Pic'', the book of poetry ''Mexico City Blues'', and the classic novel [[On the Road]].

He is credited with starting the [[Beatnik|Beat Generation]], and was friendly with other great writers of the time including [[Allen Ginsberg]], [[William S. Burroughs]], [[Ken Kesey]] and [[Tom Wolfe]].

He died of blood-loss due to complications stemming from a life of [[alcohol abuse]].

==References==
<http://www.beatmuseum.org/kerouac/jackkerouac.html/>
[[category:authors|Kerouac, Jack]]

Sam Walton

2012-09-14T17:27:30Z

SharonW: more info; better reference

'''Sam Walton''' (1918-1992) was an American entrepreneur best known for founding [[Wal-Mart]], the first of which opened in Bentonville, [[Arkansas]] in 1962. Prior to this, he had operated a number of Ben Franklin discount stores along with several members of his family. While starting out with modest means, Walton went on to become a billionaire, and the richest man in America according to Forbes magazine in 1985.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/walton2.html</ref>

In 1983, Walton founded Sam's Club, a warehouse club store affiliated with Wal-Mart in which customers must purchase a membership. Sam's Clubs are marketed toward small businesses.

Walton continued to have an active role in his company as CEO until 1988, and continued to stay active until his death. On March 17, 1992, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President [[George W. Bush]] in Bentonville.<ref>[http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=4072&year=1992&month=3 Remarks on Presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Samuel M. Walton in Bentonville, Arkansas] George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, retrieved September 14, 2012</ref>

Walton also quietly lived his [[Christian]] faith, giving scholarships for foreigners to attend Christian universities and setting up a yearly endowment to help spread the gospel through the [[Presbyterian]] Church shortly before his death.<ref>http://www.savewalmart.com/introduction.asp</ref>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Walton, Sam}}
===References===
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Sam Walton

2012-09-14T17:20:58Z

SharonW: Undo revision 1006255 by Karajou (talk)

'''Sam Walton''' (1918-1992) was an American entrepreneur best known for founding [[Wal-Mart]], the first of which opened in Bentonville, [[Arkansas]] in 1962. Prior to this, he had operated a number of Ben Franklin discount stores along with several members of his family. While starting out with modest means, Walton went on to become a billionaire, and the richest man in America according to Forbes magazine in 1985.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/walton2.html</ref>

In 1983, Walton founded Sam's Club, a warehouse club store affiliated with Wal-Mart in which customers must purchase a membership. Sam's Clubs are marketed toward small businesses.

Walton continued to have an active role in his company as CEO until 1988, and continued to stay active until his death. He was awarded the medal of freedom shortly before his death.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0772005.html</ref>

Walton also quietly lived his [[Christian]] faith, giving scholarships for foreigners to attend Christian universities and setting up a yearly endowment to help spread the gospel through the [[Presbyterian]] Church shortly before his death.<ref>http://www.savewalmart.com/introduction.asp</ref>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Walton, Sam}}
===References===
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Senate Elections 2012

2012-09-14T15:39:16Z

SharonW: /* Toss Up */

'''2012 United States Senate elections''' to be held November 6, 2012 includes [[Republican]], Democrat and Independent candidates vying for six-year terms and a seat in the 113th Congress. [[Democrat]]s need to defend 21 seats and Republicans need only to defend 10 seats. Two seats held by Independents are up for election and lean Democrat: Bernie Sanders seeks re-election and Joe Lieberman is retiring.

Democrats' majority status and [[Harry Reid]]'s Senate leadership are at stake. Democrats are growing uncomfortable as they decline to endorse [[Obama]]'s shift on [[gay marriage]]. "Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform." [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227007-vulnerable-democratic-senators-balk-at-obamas-endorsement-of-gay-marriage]

As of August 29, the [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecasts a 47-46 split favoring democrats with 7 toss-up seats, but that includes a questionable claim that Democrats will likely hold on to the [[New Mexico]] seat. In these key states, most of which are listed as "toss-up" or even leaning Democrat, the Democrat candidate will probably not win unless he garners more votes than [[Obama]] in the state:

*Connecticut
*Indiana
*Massachusetts
*Montana (Rehberg-R v. Tester-D)
*North Dakota
*Ohio
*Virginia

==Senate Contests==

Ratings originally based on [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html RealClearPolitics website] forecast; forecasts revised here on September 9, 2012.

===Safe Republican===

'''* Mississippi'''

Republican [[Roger Wicker]] is the incumbent. He will face Democrat Albert N. Gore.

'''* Tennessee'''

Republican [[Bob Corker]] is the incumbent. He will face conservative Democrat Mark Clayton. Clayton will not have any help from his party.

'''* Texas'''

Republican [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] is retiring. Tea party backed [[Ted Cruz]] will face Paul Sadler, who won his primary runoff for the Democrat nomination. Sadler is a backer of [[Obamacare]] and [[Planned Parenthood]].

'''* Utah'''

Republican [[Orrin Hatch]] is the incumbent. Pete Ashdown is the Democrat challenger.

'''* Wyoming'''

Republican [[John Barrasso]] is the incumbent.

===Likely Republican===

'''* Nebraska'''

Democrat [[Ben Nelson]] is retiring. [[Pro-life]] [[Deb Fischer]] defeated [[RINO]] Jon Bruning for the Republican nomination; and will face Democrat Bob Kerrey.

===Leans Republican===

'''* Arizona'''

Republican [[Jon Kyl]] is retiring. Richard Carmona [D], [[Jeff Flake]] [R], Wil Cardon [R] are running. Flake is endorsed by the [[Senate Conservatives Fund]].

'''* Indiana'''

Tea Party-backed Republican [[Richard Mourdock]] will face Democrat Joe Donnelly after defeating 35-year incumbent Republican [[Richard Lugar]].

'''* Nevada'''

Republican [[Dean Heller]] was appointed in 2011 to replace [[John Ensign]] and is considered the incumbent. He faces Rep. Shelley Berkley who cruised to victory in the Democratic primary. Polling has Heller with a lead of, on average, 4 points though he generally fails to break 50%, a crucial benchmark for an incumbent.

'''* Wisconsin'''

Democrat [[Herb Kohl]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tammy Baldwin]] will face Republican [[Tommy Thompson]].

===Toss Up===

'''* Florida'''

Democrat [[Bill Nelson]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Representative Connie Mack. Polls show Nelson below the 50 percent mark, which is bad news for an incumbent and Nelson cannot win if Romney takes Florida, a must-win state for him. As of September 2012, Nelson leads Mack by about 8 percentage points, depending on the poll.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/fl/florida_senate_mack_vs_nelson-1847.html Florida Senate - Mack vs. Nelson] realclearpolitics.com, retrieved September 14, 2012</ref>

'''* Missouri'''

Democrat [[Claire McCaskill]] is the incumbent and faces [[movement conservative]] [[Todd Akin]], the [[Republican]] nominee. Since Akin's comments regarding pregnancy and "legitimate rape," Akin has gone from leading McCaskill by 6 points in prior polls to trailing her by 10 points in a Rasmussen Poll from August 22.

'''* Massachusetts'''

Republican [[Scott Brown]] is the incumbent, and will face Democrat [[Elizabeth Warren]]. Polling has this race in a tie.

'''* Michigan'''

Democrat [[Debbie Stabenow]] is the incumbent and will face Republican [[Pete Hoekstra]].

'''* Montana'''

Democrat [[Jon Tester]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Denny Rehberg]]. June 2012 polling has Rehberg holding a 2-point lead.

'''* North Dakota'''

Democrat [[Kent Conrad]] is retiring. July polling has Republican Rick Berg leading Democrat Heidi Heitkamp by +5.

'''* Ohio'''

Democrat [[Sherrod Brown]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican [[Josh Mandel]]. Mandel has the backing of Senator [[Jim Demint]]. Brown has the backing of [[George Soros]], the [[SEIU]] and the former [[ACORN]].

'''* Virginia'''

Democrat [[Jim Webb]] is retiring. Democrat [[Tim Kaine]] will face Republican [[George Allen]]. Polling has this race tied and may come down to which presidential candidate carries Virginia in November.

===Leans Democrat===

'''* Connecticut'''

Independent [[Joe Lieberman]] is retiring. Democrat Chris Murphy will face Republican challenger [[Linda McMahon]].

'''* Hawaii'''

Democrat [[Daniel Akaka]] is retiring. Democrat Mazie Hirono will face former Republican Governor [[Linda Lingle]].

'''* New Mexico'''

Democrat [[Jeff Bingaman]] is retiring. Republican Heather Wilson will face Democrat Martin Heinrich.

===Likely Democrat===

'''* New Jersey'''

Democrat [[Bob Menendez]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican Joe Kyrillos .

'''* Pennsylvania'''

Democrat [[Bob Casey, Jr.]] is the incumbent. 7 Republicans declared. [[Pro-choice | Fake Pro-life]] Casey Jr. is a strong defender of Obama and [[Harry Reid]].

'''* Washington'''

Democrat [[Maria Cantwell]] is the incumbent. [[Michael Baumgartner]] is the Republican challenger.

'''* West Virginia'''

Democrat [[Joe Manchin]] is the incumbent. He will face Republican John Raese. Barack Obama polls so poorly in this state that Manchin refuses to say who he'll vote for President. [http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/manchin-won-t-endorse-obama-charleston-paper-won-t-endorse-manchin-20120425]

===Safe Democrat===

'''* California'''

Democrat [[Dianne Feinstein]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Elizabeth Emken

'''* Delaware'''

Democrat [[Tom Carper]] is the incumbent. Businessman Kevin Wade is the Republican candidate.

'''* Maryland'''

Democrat [[Ben Cardin]] is the incumbent. He will face former Secret Service agent and Republican [[Dan Bongino]].

'''* Minnesota'''

Democrat [[Amy Klobuchar]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican [[Kurt Bills]].

'''* New York'''

Democrat [[Kirsten Gillibrand]] is the incumbent. She will face Republican Wendy Long.

'''* Rhode Island'''

Democrat [[Sheldon Whitehouse]] is the incumbent. Republican Barry Hinckley the challenger.

'''* Vermont'''

Independent [[Bernie Sanders]] who caucuses with the Democrats is the incumbent. John MacGovern [R] is the Republican challenger.

===Likely Independent===

'''* Maine'''

Republican [[Olympia Snowe]] is retiring. Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charlie Summers will face Independent former Gov. [[Angus King]]. Polling predicts King will be the victor. King's positions are viewed as generally liberal leaning, and he is being treated as the ''de facto'' Democrat by the Republican campaign. It is unclear with which party he would caucus, however.

==States without a Senate race in 2012==
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont.

==See also==
* [[Presidential Election 2012]]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]
[[category:Obama Presidency]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Ray Garofalo

2012-09-13T20:01:26Z

SharonW: fix name format

'''Raymond Edward "Ray" Garofalo, Jr.''' (born c. 1958) is a [[lawyer]] and [[business]]man from St. Bernard Parish in southeastern [[Louisiana]], who is a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from District 103, which encompasses primarily St. Bernard Parish and four precincts each from neighboring Orleans and Plaquemines parishes.

Garofalo is a graduate of two [[Roman Catholic]] institutions in [[New Orleans]], Loyola University and the Loyola Law School.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134622/ray-garofalo|title=Representative Ray Garofalo|publisher=votesmart.org|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

Considered a [[conservative]], Garofalo won the state House position in the [[general election]] held on November 19, 2011, when he defeated the [[Democrat]], Chad Lauga, 7,153 (53.3 percent) to 6,262 (46.7 percent).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/11192011/11192011_Legislative.html|title=General election returns, November 19, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>The incumbent Democrat, Reed S. Henderson, did not seek reelection.

Garofalo resides with his wife, Joan, in Meraux, a census designated place in St. Bernard Parish.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Garofalo, Ray}}
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Ray Garofolo

2012-09-13T20:00:21Z

SharonW: Redirected page to Ray Garofalo

#REDIRECT [[Ray Garofalo]]

Presidential debates 2012

2012-09-13T19:53:20Z

SharonW: /* General Election Debates */ format; add participants

The '''presidential debates 2012''' are as follows:

==Republican Primary Debates==
*May 5th in Greenville, SC, at the Peace Center: Cain, Johnson, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum
:: ''Analysis: Insignificant without major contenders''

*June 13th in Manchester, NH, at Saint Anselm College: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, Santorum
::''Winners: Romney by far, then Bachmann

*August 11th, in Ames, Iowa, at Iowa State University: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, Santorum
::''Winners: Bachmann and Santorum''
::''Losers: Huntsman and Pawlenty''

==General Election Debates==
*Wednesday, October 3
::Romney and Obama
::Magness Arena, University of Denver, Denver, [[Colorado]]
::Focus on domestic policy. Moderated by [[Jim Lehrer]]
*Thursday, October 11
::Ryan and Biden
::Norton Center for the Arts, Centre College, [[Danville, Kentucky]]
::Focus on domestic and foreign policy. Moderated by [[Martha Raddatz]]
*Tuesday, October 16
::Romney and Obama
::David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex, Hofstra University, [[Hempstead, New York]]
::Town hall style. Moderated by [[Candy Crowley]]
*Monday, October 22
::Romney and Obama
::Wold Performing Arts Center, Lynn University, [[Boca Raton, Florida]]
::Focus on foreign policy. Moderated by [[Bob Schieffer]].

===Analysis===

====Advantages for Romney====

*Romney has reportedly been preparing to trounce Obama for months, practicing on [[RINO]] [[Rob Portman]].
*Two debates will focus on domestic policy while another town hall debate which will likely focus on the terrible economy. While Obama will probably blame the economic crisis on Bush, Romney will surely have the upper hand when it comes to economic issues.

====Advantages for Obama====
*Romney will face trouble from the moderators all of which are very liberal and will likely give "softball questions" to Obama.
*The last debate is focused on foreign policy. Despite losing thousands of heroic American lives due to mismanaged wars and ROEs which give the upper hand to terrorists, Obama claims it was his decision to take out Bin Laden and is supported in this unlikely claim by the liberal media.

== See also ==

*[[Presidential election 2012]]
*[http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/ Debate schedule]
[[Category:United States Politics]]

This Land is Your Land

2012-09-13T19:44:48Z

SharonW:

'''This Land is Your Land''' is a [[communist]] folk song written by [[Woody Guthrie]] in 1940, and initially recorded in 1944. It has been recorded by performer/liberal activist [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[Bob Dylan]], and [[British]] socialist performer [[Billy Bragg]]. Despite the communist sympathies of Guthrie and this song, it is generally regarded as one of America's favorite folk songs and was at one point being considered as a suggestion to be the national anthem.<ref>[http://banteringbibliocrat.blogspot.com/2008/07/woody-guthries-this-land-is-your-land.html]</ref> Communist [[Pete Seeger]] has stated that Guthrie was also a communist; however, Guthrie's membership in the Communist Party is debated, and his daughter called him a "commonist, not a communist."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jul/07/woody-guthrie-centenary-protest-songs Woody Guthrie still inspires, 100 years on from his birth] Ed Vulliamy, guardian.co.uk, July 7, 2012, retrieved September 13, 2012</ref>

One of the last verses of the song implies that there should be no such thing as private [[property]].

:As I was walking, I saw a sign there;
:And on the sign said "No Trespassing";
:But on the other side, it didn't say nothing;
:This land is made for you and me.

An alternative is:

:There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
:Sign was painted, it said private property;
:But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
:This land was made for you and me.

Another verse implying a need for [[welfare]] is:

:In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
:By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
:As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
:Is this land made for you and me?
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

User talk:BHathorn

2012-09-11T19:03:49Z

SharonW: /* Edit reversion */ new section

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:18, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

== Articles ==

I assume you wrote them.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, I am the author of the two articles. [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]] 22:43, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Then how is it that a Wikipedia editor doesn't know how to format pages? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Anita Perry ==

The section you've added about her brother is almost half of the article, and would probably fit better in the Rick Perry and/or G.W. Bush articles. It was the interaction between the men that's caused whatever stress there might be. The way the section in the article is written, Mrs. Perry doesn't appear to be involved at all, other than being a sister and wife. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Article format ==

I've tried to fix the formatting and references on your article [[Chuck Hopson]]. Please take the time to correct your other articles, and try to use the correct formatting on any new articles you write. Thanks! --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:53, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Articles from WP ==

Could you please attribute them from WP written by you on the talk page? There's a template for it, and I'll find you the link. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:02, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:{{Copied from|site=|user=|site user=}}
::There you go!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:06, 13 November 2011 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has been granted extra rights (blocking and SkipCatcha)!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Bryan Hughes ==

The [[Bryan Hughes]] article you wrote needs to have the in-line references fixed. Was it copy/pasted from somewhere? If it was, and you wrote the original, the talk page needs a disclaimer. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:50, 24 November 2011 (EST)

== Edit reversion ==

I'm curious why you reversed my edit about the name format for Ray Garofalo? The proper format for names is '''First Middle "Nickname" Last". [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:03, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Ray Garofolo

2012-09-10T21:59:10Z

SharonW: name format

'''Raymond Edward "Ray" Garofalo, Jr.''' (born c. 1958) is a [[lawyer]] and diversified [[business]]man from St. Bernard Parish in southeastern [[Louisiana]], who is a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from District 103, which encompasses primarily St. Bernard Parish and four precincts each from neighboring Orleans and Plaquemines parishes.

Garofalo is a graduate of two [[Roman Catholic]] institutions in [[New Orleans]], Loyola University and the Loyola Law School.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134622/ray-garofalo|title=Representative Ray Garofalo|publisher=votesmart.org|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

Considered a [[conservative]], Garofalo won the state House position in the [[general election]] held on November 19, 2011, when he defeated the [[Democrat]], Chad Lauga, 7,153 (53.3 percent) to 6,262 (46.7 percent).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/11192011/11192011_Legislative.html|title=General election returns, November 19, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>The incumbent Democrat, Reed S. Henderson, did not seek reelection.

Garofalo resides with his wife, Joan, in Meraux, a census designated place in St. Bernard Parish.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Garofalo, Ray}}
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Chris Leopold

2012-09-10T21:57:32Z

SharonW: name format

'''Christopher J. "Chris" Leopold''' (born 1968) is a [[business]]man from Belle Chasse, [[Louisiana]], who is a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from District 105 (primarily Plaquemines Parish).

A native of southeastern Louisiana, Leopold graduated in 1986 from St. Martin's Episcopal School in Metairie in Jefferson Parish. In 1990, he received a bachelor's degree in marketing from Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. He later attended the Institute of Politics at Loyola University in [[New Orleans]].<ref name=leop>{{cite web|url=http://www.leopoldforlouisiana.com/about|title=My Resume|publisher=leopoldforlouisiana.com|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

Leopold was elected in 1996, 2000, and 2004 to the Republican State Central Committee.<ref name=leop/> In 2011, he was elected to the state House to fill the seat vacated by the term-limited Ernest Wooton, an [[Independent]] and a former St. Bernard Parish sheriff. In the general election held on November 19, Leopold defeated fellow Republican, Harold L. "Rocky" Asevedo, 4,786 (53.4 percent) to 4,183 (46.6 percent). In addition to Plaquemines Parish, the district also includes a few precincts from Jefferson and Orleans parishes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/11192011/11192011_Legislative.html|title=General election returns, November 19, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

Leopold is a member of Ducks Unlimited, Rotary International, and the [[Roman Catholic]] men's organization, the [[Knights of Columbus]]. He and his wife, the former Joanna Cappiello, have three children, William, Charley Ann, and Sydney Claire Leopold.<ref name=leop/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Leopold, Chris}}
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category: Politicians]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Bret Allain

2012-09-10T21:56:42Z

SharonW: name format

'''Robert Lebreton "Brett" Allain, II''' (born c. 1958) is a sugar cane [[farmer]] and [[business]]man from Jeanerette in St. Mary Parish in south [[Louisiana]], who is a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana State Senate from District 21, which encompasses all of St. Mary and portions of Iberia, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parish parishes.<ref name=allain>{{cite web|url=http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111127/articles/111129789?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar|title=Nate Monroe, "10 questions for state Sen. Bret Allain", November 28, 2011|publisher=houmatoday.com|accessdate=May 19, 2012}}</ref>

Allain graduated in 1980 with a degree in agricultural engineering from [[Louisiana State University]] in [[Baton Rouge]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lsualumni.org/?p=7213|title=Jackie Bartkiewicz, "Getting Much More than Just a Senior Ring," December 1, 2011|publisher=lsualumni.org|accessdate=May 19, 2012}}</ref>

He was elected outright in the nonpartisan blanket primary held on October 22, 2011 for the right to succeed the term-limited [[Democratic]] Senator Butch Gautreaux of Morgan City. Allain received 14,618 votes (51.4 percent) in the contest with another Republican, Darrin Guidry, a newspaper publisher from Houma in Terrebonne Parish,<ref name=allain/> who polled 13,846 votes (48.6 percent). No Democrat sought the position in the revised district.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/10222011/10222011_Legislative.html|title=Louisiana primary election returns, October 22, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 18, 2012}}</ref>

Allain lists flood protection at the top his legislative priorities: "It's important we protect people from hurricanes and back-water flooding. One project that proved itself during the Mississippi River flooding is the sinking of the barge in Bayou Chene. That probably saved hundreds of homes in Terrebonne and St. Mary parishes. I also want to move the Morganza-to-the-Gulf levee system along."<ref name=allain/>"We will continue to fight for as much money as we can for funding for levees and the Bayou Chene project. That's first and foremost — to make sure we push forward our agenda for those operations," Allain added.<ref name=allain/>

Allain also is committed to completing Interstate 49, the [[Shreveport]] to Lafayette, Louisiana, superhighway. A pending plan would upgrade U.S. Highway 90 between [[New Orleans]] and Lafayette into an interstate-quality highway.<ref name=allain/>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Allain, Bret}}
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Farmers]]

Jeff R. Thompson

2012-09-10T21:55:53Z

SharonW: name format

'''Jefferson Rowe "Jeff" Thompson''' (born c. 1964) is a lawyer in Bossier City, [[Louisiana]], and a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from District 8, a position that he assumed in January 2012.

Thompson was elected to the House in 2011, when the term-limited incumbent, fellow Republican Jane H. Smith, also of Bossier City, ran instead, unsuccessfully, for the Louisiana State Senate. Thompson defeated fellow Republican, Duke Lowrie, 4,991 (56.8 percent) to 3,803 (43.3 percent).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/10222011/10222011_Legislative.html|title=Election returns, October 22, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 15, 2012}}</ref>Smith, meanwhile, was defeated by the Republican businessman [[Barrow Peacock]] of [[Shreveport]] for the Senate seat vacated by Republican B. L. "Buddy" Shaw, who like Smith is a former educator.

In 2008, Thompson was an unsuccessful candidate for the [[United States House of Representatives]] from Louisiana's 4th congressional district. The seat opened when the incumbent Jim McCrery stepped down to become a [[lobbyist]]. Thompson ran third in the primary, and the position eventually went to the Republican physician and businessman [[John Fleming]] of [[Minden, Louisiana|Minden]].

In the spring of 2012, Representative Thompson worked to kill an anti-bullying bill sponsored by Patricia Smith, a [[Democrat]] from [[Baton Rouge]]. [[Conservative]] opponents to the legislation claimed that the measure is at odds with freedom of speech rulings by the United States [[Supreme Court]]. Thompson offered an amendment, which removed those sections of the bill that specify prohibitions against bullying in regard to sexual orientation, disabilities, and race. Smith said that the Thompson amendment effectively killed the focus of the legislation, and she withdrew it from further consideration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://theadvocate.com/home/2606631-125/changes-doom-bullying-proposal|title=Will Sentell, "Changes doom bullying proposal," May 1, 2012|publisher=''Baton Rouge Morning Advocate''|accessdate=May 15, 2012}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thompson, Jeff R.}}

[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Jay Morris

2012-09-10T21:54:34Z

SharonW: correct name format; correct cat

'''John Clyde "Jay" Morris, III''' (born 1958) is a [[business]]man and [[Lawyer|attorney]] from [[Monroe, Louisiana|Monroe]], [[Louisiana]], who is a [[Republican]] member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from District 14, which encompasses Ouachita and Morehouse parishes in the northeastern portion of his state.

Morris won the position in the [[general election]] held on November 19, 2011, when he unseated fellow Republican Sam Little, a retired farmer, originally from Bastrop in Morehouse Parish. Morris polled 5,005 votes (59.1 percent) to Little's 3,463 ballots (40.9 percent).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/11192011/11192011_Legislative.html|title=Louisiana general election returns, November 19, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref> In the campaign for the heavily [[redistricting|redistricted]] seat, Little and Morris accused each other of engaging in negative campaigning. A graduate of [[Louisiana State University]] and the LSU Law Center, both in [[Baton Rouge]],<ref name=bio>{{cite eb|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134583/john-morris-iii|title=Rep. John Morris, III|publisher=votesmart.org|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref> Morris is employed in the mortgage service industry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/DI/20111116/NEWS01/111116024/|title=Greg Hilburn, "Morris, Little go negative in District 14 race"|publisher=''Alexandria Daily Town Talk'', November 16, 2011|accessdate=November 20, 2011}}</ref>

Morris formerly worked on Capitol Hill in [[Washington, D.C.]], for former U.S. Senator [[J. Bennett Johnston, Jr.]], a [[Democrat]].<ref name=bio/> He was also a staff member at one time for the Louisiana Municipal Association.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thepoliticaldesk.com/?p=749|title=Rookie Cheat Sheet|publisher=thepoliticaldesk.com|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref>He is a partner of the Thompson, Sparks, Dean and Morris law firm.<ref name=bio/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lawyer.com/firm/thompson-sparks-dean-morris-monroe-la-121937-contact-information.html|title=Thompson Sparks Dean & Morris|publisher=lawyer.com|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref>

Morris led the three-candidate field in the primary held on October 22, with 5,078 votes (42.6 percent). Little trailed with 4,384 ballots (36.7 percent). A third Republican, Michael Echols, held the remaining but critical 2,471 votes (20.7 percent).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/10222011/10222011_Legislative.html|title=Louisiana primary election returns, October 22, 2011|publisher=staticresults.sos.la.gov|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref>

Prior to residing in Monroe, Morris lived in St. Joseph in Tensas Parish, Rayville in Richland Parish, and [[New Orleans]].<ref>{{cite web|url=
http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/people-search/names/la+monroe/john/morris.html|title=US Search|publisher=ussearch.com|accessdate=May 17, 2012}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Morris, Jay}}
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Politicians]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

RINO Backers

2012-09-10T20:21:26Z

SharonW: fix format

The [[media bullying]] of [[pro-life]] leader and candidate for the [[United States Senate|Senate]] from [[Missouri]] [[Todd Akin]] highlighted who sides with [[RINO]]s when it counts most -- on the important social issues. A list of those who stood on principle is also provided.

== Opposed [[Pro-Life]] Leader Todd Akin ==

'''''The following have become a hindrance to advancement of the [[pro-life]] movement, by opposing the principled stance of Todd Akin''''', as their demagoguery interferes with limits on abortion based on false allegations of rape:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[Karl Rove]]
|Karl Rove engaged in demagoguery against Akin by falsely pretending that Akin was drawing a distinction between "legitimate rape" and "illegitimate rape": "After those damaging statements, I mean to try and differentiate between what’s a legitimate rape and an illegitimate rape and believing somehow that a woman’s body would reject a pregnancy if it was an illegitimate rape … These were reprehensible and deplorable comments." <ref>[http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/08/21/karl-rove-rep-akin-should-leave-race-after-deplorable-comments/]</ref> Rove's [[American Crossroads]] relies on funding from [[Las Vegas]] casino owners, and Karl Rove evidently cares more about money for his (ineffective) [[Super PAC]] than [[pro-life]] values.
|-
|[[Ron Johnson]]
|Johnson had no connection with the issue and is not up for reelection, but apparently act on orders by [[RINO]]s in pontificating that "Todd Akin's statements are reprehensible and inexcusable...Gaining a Republican majority in the US Senate and fixing the huge challenges that face our nation is more important than any one individual's political ambitions. Todd Akin should do the right thing for the nation and step aside today, so Missouri Republicans can put forth a candidate that can win in November." <ref>[http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=277645]</ref>
|-
|[[Sean Hannity]]
|"As a political observer I see it differently here. I think for the next week all you're going to hear from Democrats is your comments. ...I think there is one political reality that I think has to be faced by you and your campaign and that is that you know, the reality here is that Democrats now have a ton of ammunition and they are now going to try to use these remarks to hurt everybody they can. And if I was put in that position, I would at least be thinking about what is in the best interest of the party."<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/20/hannity_urges_akin_to_consider_dropping_out_in_interview_with_him.html]</ref> Recall that Hannity once had a [[pro-life]] priest on his show simply to berate him unfairly for his principled stance.
|-
|[[RedState|redstate.com]]
|"This is abhorrent, ignorant, idiotic, foolish, blindingly stupid…Akin must go." <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neoavatara/2012/08/19/todd-akin-must-go/]</ref>
|-
|[[Ann Coulter]]
|"This selfish swine, Todd Akin, is going to hurt the Republican Party." <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/ann-coulter-todd-akin-selfish-swine_n_1824510.html]</ref>
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|"Todd Akin’s comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country." <ref> [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-pushes-rep-todd-akin-drop-race-lets-deadline-calls-furor-a-bit-overreaction-article-1.1141698#ixzz24TyqMN9X] </ref>
|-
|[[Paul Ryan]]
|"His statements were outrageous, over the pale. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that." <ref>[http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/08/21/in-exclusive-interview-paul-ryan-distances-self-from-akin/]</ref>
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Falsely implied that Akin was staying in the race based on "self-desire": "So you have to step aside ... from your self-desire to get in there and serve and do what you believe is right, and you have to, in a sense, take one for the team, and you have to step aside, hand the mantle to someone else." <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79976.html#ixzz24Twr7RsW] </ref>
|-
|[[Rush Limbaugh]]
|perhaps fearful of losing an advertiser, even though he's already made millions by pretending to be [[conservative]], Rush piled on with the [[media bullying]] against Akin. Limbaugh called Akin's comment "stupid" and then, illustrating Limbaugh's foolish self-centeredness, declared that "If I had demanded Akin drop out, he’d be gone."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80003.html#ixzz253Tv1IjT</ref> Limbaugh said, "What I think Mr. Akin should try to realize here as he makes his decision is that all of these things that he truly cares about will be much easier to make happen if we win the Senate and the White House and hold the House this November. He must put the nation and its future ahead of everything else that he's considering. And I hope he comes to the right conclusion."<ref>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/21/akin_s_remark_was_stupid_and_untrue_now_he_must_put_the_nation_s_future_first</ref>
|-
|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|"If only we conservative women had magical ways of preventing stupid Repub men from implanting rhetorical IEDs on our lawns…"<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/20/the-todd-akin-mess/</ref>
|-
|[[Tea Party Express]] leader Amy Kremer
|"One of the lessons we learned in 2010 is that we need candidates who are not only conservative, but are capable of putting together a strong campaign against liberal opponents. Akin’s frequent ‘Bidenisms’ are distracting from the important issues at hand."<ref>http://www.teapartyexpress.org/5205/tea-party-express-urges-rep-akin-to-step-down</ref>
|-
|[[Reince Priebus]]
|Priebus said the Party would not support Akin financially. "[H]e could be tied. We're not going to send him a penny."<ref>http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/27/priebus-on-akin-he-could-be-tied-were-not-going-to-send-him-a-penny/</ref>
|-
|[[Mitch McConnell]]
|"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse, although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/20/news/la-pn-mcconnell-suggests-todd-akin-consider-his-options-20120820</ref>
|-
|[[John Cornyn]]
|"Congressman Akin’s statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible,” he said in a statement release by the campaign committee. “I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service."<ref>http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/john-cornyn-gives-todd-akin-a-24-hour-ultimatum-we-want-you-out/</ref>
|-
|[[Roy Blunt]]
|"Todd Akin, who has served in the House for a dozen years, has managed to get himself into a situation where he has become the issue,” Blunt said at a breakfast Tuesday sponsored by Politico. “If he gets out, I think we win the seat."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/28/blunt_says_akin_imperils_gops_hopes_for_missouri_115233.html</ref>
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|"As a husband and father of two young women, I found Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate and wrong. There is no place in our public discourse for this type of offensive thinking. Not only should he apologize, but I believe Rep. Akin’s statement was so far out of bounds that he should resign the nomination for US Senate in Missouri."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref>
|-
|[[Jeff Flake]]
|"I oppose abortion, but exceptions must be made for rape, incest and to protect life of the mother. Cong. Akin’s comment was wrong. #azsen"<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref>
|-
|[[Dean Heller]]
|"Todd Akin’s comments were unquestionably inappropriate and absurd. He should not be the standard bearer for the Republican Party in Missouri."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-macaca-moment/</ref> ''And who is Dean Heller?'' He was ''appointed'' as Senator from [[Nevada]] by the Republican Establishment, rather than being elected by the people to the position.
|-
|[[Charles Krauthammer]]
|"He's toxic. Nobody will touch him. Republicans aren't going to support him. He's not going to get any money. They've tossed away a seat that they could easily have won. It isn't only that it was offensive and toxic; it was unbelievably stupid. And there is enough stupidity in Congress that we don't need to add to it in this large amount. The guy's got to leave."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/20/krauthammer_on_akin_toxic_and_unbelievably_stupid.html</ref>
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|"Akin should not only exit his race for the Senate, he should drop out of public life. I’m offended by what he thinks, not just what he said."<ref>http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/Christie_calls_for_Missouri_Senate_candidate_Akin_to_drop_out_of_race.html</ref>
|}

== Stood With Principle and [[Pro-Life]] Leader Todd Akin ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[American Family Association]]
|AFA representative Bryan Fischer stated, "Akin's words, for which he apologized even though he had no need to, were right. He was entirely correct to say that pregnancies in cases of forcible rape are rare."<ref>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=004DDFAC-6907-452E-93F5-62D3793BBABE</ref>
|-
|Connie Mackey and the [[Family Research Council]]
|Never wavered from their support of Todd Akin throughout the [[media bullying]]; the Council's president, [[Tony Perkins]] called the [[GOP]] treatment of Akin "suspect".<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/tony-perkins-gop-treatment-of-akin-suspect/</ref>
|-
|Missouri Delegates to the [[Republican National Convention]]
|"Missouri Delegates Still Support Todd Akin, Despite Controversy."<ref>http://www.rollcall.com/news/missouri_delegates_still_support_todd_akin_despite_controversy-217050-1.html</ref>
|-
|Congressman [[Steve King]]
|"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for. And in this case, I'm seeing the same thing -- petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57497428-503544/rep-steve-king-backs-up-todd-akin-weighs-in-on-rape-and-abortion/</ref>
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|"Unlike his fellow Kentucky Republican senator, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul isn’t calling on Republican Congressman Todd Akin to leave the Missouri Senate race."<ref>[http://mycn2.com/politics/rand-paul-reticent-to-weigh-in-on-akin-s-future-but-says-akin-s-comment-was-incorrect Rand Paul reticent to weigh in on Akin's future but says Akin's comment was incorrect] by Ryan Alessi, mycn2.com, August 22, 2012, retrieved August 24, 2012</ref>
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Siding with Todd Akin, Huckabee observed that Akin's comment "was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin's own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates?"<ref>http://akin.org/huckabee-chip-in</ref>
|-
|Dr. [[John C. Willke]]
|"It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life."<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/news/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821</ref> (Dr. Willke is a physician with training in obstetrics.)
|-
|[[Susan B. Anthony List]]
|"We are proud to support Congressman Akin." <ref>http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/08/social-conservatives-including-frc-head-tony-perkins-defending-rep-todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comment.html</ref>
|-
|[[Tony Perkins]]
|"Todd said he misspoke. He apologized for it. And so now I think it’s time to move on.”<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80049.html</ref>
|-
|[[Pat Buchanan]]
|"Whittaker Chambers said that “the great failing of American conservatives is they do not retrieve their wounded.”
He had it right, as Todd Akin can testify."<ref>http://buchanan.org/blog/a-grand-old-party-in-panic-2-5223</ref>
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|"I think Todd Akin is the choice of the people of Missouri. And Todd Akin has publicly apologized. People make mistakes.”<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/politics/gingrich-appears-to-support-akin-20120902</ref>
|-
|[[Victoria Jackson]]
|“The Todd Akin thing was so blown out of proportion — it’s a joke. How many times do people get pregnant from rape? It’s point zero zero one percent. It’s a joke. I read lots of articles. I know people, because I’m 53. I’ve know a lot of people, and I’ve actually never known anyone who got pregnant from being raped.”<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/31/victoria-jackson-todd-akin-rape-abortion_n_1847852.html</ref>
|-
|[[Jill Stanek]]
|"I'm SICK of GOP's wimpiness on pro-life issue, most recently evidenced by @ToddAkin panic."<ref>https://twitter.com/JillStanek/status/240391400078864384</ref>
|}

== Other comments ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Individual
!Comment
|-
|[[Dick Morris]]
|"I think that story is a big plus for Romney right now because the story is not that some kooky Republican Congressman running for the Senate said something stupid. That was the first story. Now the story is that the responsible leaders of the Republican Party – Romney and McConnell and Ryan and all of them – are piling on Akin to withdraw and he won’t. And that really sends a message to pro-choice women that they don’t have to be afraid of Mitt Romney, that they don’t have to vote for Obama because of that."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/08/23/morris-akin-story-now-big-plus-romney</ref>
|-
|[[Rick Scott]]
|"I clearly disagree with what he said."<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/gov-scott-practices-monday-night-rnc-speech-condemns-akin-rape-comments Gov. Scott practices for Monday night RNC speech, condemns Akin rape comments] The Buzz, ''Tampa Bay Times'', August 21, 2012, retrieved September 7, 2012.</ref>
|}

==See also==
* [[:Category:Rino backers]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:Rino backers|*]]

Talk:RINO Backers

2012-09-08T01:44:52Z

SharonW: /* Rick Scott */ new section

==Terminology==
I think we have to be careful here - single-issue disagreement does not make "RINO"s. I strongly disagree with the labeling of Palin, Coulter and the blog redstate as Republicans in Name Only.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:38, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
:The article reads: "...highlighted who sides with RINOs when it counts the most on important social issues, and who stands with principle." I think the point is that the people listed may or may not be RINOs themselves, but that when the chips are down, chose to ''side with the RINOs'', regardless of their own political convictions. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:43, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
::Point taken I missed that.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:45, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
== RINOs ==
I saw this article and it struck me that this site is listing as RINO backers or RINOs most of the leading names of the Republican Party, elected and/or followed by the Republican electorate. Maybe the people on this site are the RINOs and need to start their own party, b/c when you call the leadership RINOs you just make yourselves sound like you're the outliers, not representative of the modern Republican Party. It's been made abundantly clear Todd Akin's views are not Republican. --[[User:BillWhitliff|BillWhitliff]] 19:58, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

:A glance at the [[RINO Backers]] does not reveal a list of "most of the leading names of the Republican Party." Indeed, most of the people on the list are not even party officials. The party officials have released the [[Republican Party Platform]] that shows it is the [[RINO Backers]], not [[Todd Akin]], who are out of step.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
::Mitt Romney is your Presidential candidate, and his running mate Paul Ryan is a Republican "Young Gun", the architect of the budget the Republican House has passed three times, and considered the party's intellectual touchstone. Sarah Palin was the Vice Presidential nominee in the last election and commands a presence in the party unrivaled by most. Karl Rove engineered the successful campaigns of the last two Presidential elections won by a Republican. And you somehow think these are the RINO/RINO backers and that ''you'' and Todd Akin are the ''true'' mantel and speak the voice of the Republican Party? What elections have you won, exactly, that gives you this thought? Perhaps it's not that they are RINOs, it's that you are the RINO, if you really look at the reality of it all. Vote Republican - but neither Mr. Akin nor you Mr. Schlafly are the Republican Party - you're outliers. When you are calling Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter RINOs, maybe you should just start your own party. --[[User:BillWhitliff|BillWhitliff]] 00:12, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Most of the [[RINO Backers]] have '''''not''''' been elected. Of those who have, one quit her office midterm (Palin), one did not stand for reelection (Romney), one is a freshman senator who had not been to D.C. before (Johnson), and another declined to run for an open seat for statewide office (Ryan). This list of [[RINO Backers]] is hardly representative of the [[Republican Party]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

==His Words==

Forgive my ignorance, there has only been sporadic news about this in Australia. What were Mr Akin's exact words, we have been told by our media that he stated:

''If it’s a legitimate rape, the '''female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down'''''

Obviously this is entirely scientifically incorrect, is there context that I'm missing? [[User:TheOtherGuy|TheOtherGuy]] 00:03, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Todd Akin]] entry provides several quotations from scientific publications that are similar to what Akin said. But even if Akin were wrong, why the [[media bullying]] against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

== Rand Paul ==

Rand Paul's support is tepid at best. While he isn't calling for Akin to leave the race, Paul stated Akin was wrong regarding the science of what happens to women's bodies during rape. Also, it should be emphasized more that Akin only believes it is rape when violence is involved - he doesn't believe it is rape if the woman is drugged, or if she doesn't fight back. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

:I don't see citations or quotes in support of those comments. Todd Akin was not redefining any terms, and Rand Paul's comment concerned the medical evidence of which he was aware (he's an ophthalmologist).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:25, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

::Akin was a sponser of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which initially had wording that only included "forcible rape", and excluded cases such as statutory rape, which often are ''not'' violent. "Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes."[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape]

== Akin ==

I read your article on Todd Akin, and it reached levels of partisanship that would make Wikipedia blush. This article is no different. All of the Republicans who are called RINOs here are trying to save the party from people like Akin who make careless comments and then pretend to be martyrs for whatever cause they spoke the comments in order to get foolish people in that cause to support them, while the people who support him are mostly doubtful as best and the ones that aren't are misled by this charlatan.

Mr. Schlafly, are you seriously doing this? Have you forgotten what you stood for? Are you being led astray by this false prophet? Right now, we are in a war for our country, and people like Akin are causing our efforts to be divided. Akin CANNOT stay. He MUST go.

== Hypocrisy of DNC and Media ==

First, let me say that Todd Akin made some careless mistakes that reflect poorly on the Pro-Life movement. He should've researched his stance on abortion more thoroughly and his stance on abortion is more extreme than the Pro-Life movement in general, in opposing abortion in cases of rape.

With that said, there is a double standard I don't like. He made a mistake, he apologized, it should be over with. If he were a liberal, pro-choice Democrat then Democrats and the media would not be calling for his head like this over a simple, honest mistake. In fact, they would not be demanding he step down even over severe corruption.

Want proof? Just look at Sen. '''[[Charlie Rangel]]'''. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:57, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Rangel was ridiculously corrupt, but what did the Democrats do? When Republicans tried to investigate such financial corruption by Democrats, the Democrats actually locked the Republicans out, literally, by changing the locks on the doors to stop Republicans from attending.[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room][http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html] Are Democrats calling for Rangel to resign like they are Todd Akin? Are they publicly demonizing Rangel? What about the media? No, this is a clear double standard being applied. Democrats and the media should be ashamed of themselves. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 14:14, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Victoria Jackson ==

At the moment I lack the ability to edit a wiki page with much precision, so I should be most grateful if someone were to help me out by checking the following reference and either removing my most recent edit or adding a reference to my source. which is as follows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/31/victoria-jackson-todd-akin-rape-abortion_n_1847852.html

Thanks in advance. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 12:30, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

: I got back to my computer and did it myself. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 14:27, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

== Rick Scott ==

How does Rick Scott not fit in with the others? He's a conservative who is supposedly against abortion. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:44, 7 September 2012 (EDT)