Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:William Lane Craig

2011-11-24T17:37:26Z

StoryMaker: Started page with "worthy of mention" section

==Worthy of mention?==
I was wondering if it was worth mentioning that Craig is a stalwart Molinist; i.e. a sophisticated Arminianist; i.e. someone who rejects Calvinism. Conservapedia doesn't get too much into theology; I was just wondering if it was important to mention. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:37, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-24T17:23:52Z

StoryMaker: /* Ayers quote */ Added my own suggestion for a compromise

That list of demands does not appear to be an official list : http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

== Anarchism ==

I added the category for [[Anarchism]] but wondering if others feel the definition of anarchism on Conservapedia matches the demonstrations seen with [[Occupy Wall Street|OWS]]? These protests are anti-capitalist and anti-American, but are they currently seen as anarchists too? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:You are correct. It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits. They earned the anarchism category. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:21, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Demands ==

The very few "demands" that might resemble legitimate questions are discredited by skeptical accusations, or they are backed by some very extremist anti-American philosophies. Let's take a look at some of the ridiculous pro communist, anti-American demands made by socialists, anarchists and other extremist liberals who hate capitalism, are jealous of the Tea Party Movement, and/or getting paid to act as Wall Street protesters.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.}}

Beginning a protest "demand" list with an argument stating a convicted guilty person is "an innocent man" makes this occupation less credible. Capital punishment exists to deter the crimes that result in its use. Ending capital punishment, while seemingly good in its intention, would have negative consequences. For instance, ending capital punishment might result in more crime - criminal acts that might otherwise be deterred if Capital punishment was a considered form of justice.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.}}
I highly doubt the charges were "baseless." I don't know anyone who has been arrested for doing, very literally, nothing.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.}}
This is silly. Using the word "owned" suggests "half of the country's population" is literally enslaved without choice, and that someone who made something out of nothing but gained a lot of wealth in the process is evil. Demands like this suggest extreme positions are pushing this political spectacle in the form of a protest against Wall Street.

We can add '''Ending poverty is our one demand''' to the above, because it's redundant.

How do you go about ending "wealth inequality" or "poverty" anyway? Socialism? That's not gonna work; history has proven this. It won't happen.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.}}
I guarantee with 100% confidence that Yahoo board members didn't act in some conspiracy to block mass emails getting sent from occupywallst.org servers. For those who have ever worked in support for Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., you would know that there is a process which low tier support teams follow to determine what server are sending Spam and then block those IP addresses from doing so. These processes to block Spammers include the number of email users reporting email from spammers. If enough Spam is reported from an IP address, and it has been determined that a crap ton of email is being send from a particular server, some tier 3 Yahoo! support dude sitting in a chair at his desk probably just clicked a button to block the site after all the flags indicated him to do so, per a standard support model process.

That being said, ending corporate censorship would be interesting, which would include [http://www.bing.com/search?q=Googlegate Google - a search engine that has been known to censor conservative websites]. Perhaps the liberal, anti-American protestors might want to rethink this one.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.}}

This is straight up anti-American ranting, and spreading disinformation. But it is in-line with the [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|liberal false redefinition of the United States]], so I'm not surprised liberals added it to their list of "demands." Imperialist nations would not invade a country to topple a bad regime, rebuild the country into a more free democracy, and then hand back all government and military control to the people of that country. Running with an argument to end something that does not exist discredits this political campaign to 'occupy wall street'.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.}}

America is not at war with the world. It a small group of Leftist extremists who have, in their idealist views, quote "declared war" on America.

The only thing I think of when this political campaign mentions "99%" is that this must be the percentage of people the protesters are shouting at.

God bless the United States of America. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

These Marxists are trying to bring America to the edge. Down here in Florida us tea party patriots held a counter-rally to these communist protests. I think this is a well written article on how desperate the leftists are getting. Barry will NOT have a second term. [[User:Teapartyman]]

== Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!! ==

That wasn't Bill Ayers according to the link cited. The article is about ayers but has that comment thrown in "Those are the feelings of the far left who started to disrupt Wall Street on Saturday, September 17." The article makes no claims that that was said by Bill Ayers. Nor does that quote appear on his blog or anywhere(by him) as far as I can tell. Everything just seems to link back to the same story though most make no mention of Ayers at all. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 16:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I deleted the quote since it violates the first Conservapedia commandment and it was added back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 01:31, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ayers quote ==

Jpatt, I don't think anyone here would defend Bill Ayers, but you are attributing a quote to him that is not supported by the citation, unless I am misreading the citation. It may be that he thinks that (in fact, I'm pretty sure he does), but you're saying that he wrote that. And he simply did not. Why do you keep putting that back? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Honestly, I don't think he cares. It is very easy to prove that he didn't say it with a Google search. Despite one of the protests against Wiki it seems that libelous statements are just as difficult to get rid of here. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 16:27, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::Why do you think it is a "libelous" statement? You do know Bill Ayers '''is''' a terrorist, right? Are saying this in defense of Bill Ayers, suggesting the quote may somehow damage his reputation? Or are you simply pointing out that the content might no longer exists on the Internet?
::As you can see, someone added the citation needed template, which should have resolved this dispute for you. When I do a search for the quote, there are several sources with video references -- but unfortunately liberal Google owns YouTube and is very good about removing videos with content that may reveal the liberal agenda for what it really is. Likewise, if the quote was taken directly from Bill Ayers website, Bill the terrorist could have just as easily removed the content from his blog after realizing he revealed too much about his agenda. Everything Bill Ayers stands for is exactly as his quote reads.
::That being said, if it is not a verbatim quote from Bill Ayers, then I do understand you concern - just not your approach pointing it out. Jpatt is one of the most honest, credible editors on Conservapedia; it's disrespectful and incorrect to assume he would edit out of malice or libelous intent. Perhaps you could help find appropriate content to replace it with rather than simply delete a quote that is very likely to have been said by Bill the terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:54, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Mainly I said it because I figured it would get a reaction when nothing else seems to. I posted a question about it here and and on the pages of two people who added the quote back. No response was given to any despite what I would consider more than enough time(especially on a weekend). Whether it hurts Ayers' reputation is besides the point and I doubt he would actually care. He's pretty open about what he stands for and has no qualms about expressing it. But from everything I can find he did NOT say that. I spent a while searching yesterday. You can search as much as you want but there is no evidence to suggest he said that other than this page. The article that had been cited makes it pretty obvious that the quote was not his. It is pretty obvious to me that it is not his words. If nothing else I'm sure FOX would have made a news story about it. The fact is that we're supporting a lie here. I don't see how anyone could debate that. You can blame Google for removing things but that's an entirely different problem as far as I can see. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:10, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Point taken, but I don't think we're supporting a lie. Like most ongoing events with continuously updated content and sources, further edits and updates to this article will continue to occur. Instead of removing important content, try re-wording it or rephrasing it without taking away from the factual intent. Add some value to the article instead of removing valuable points and citations. The fact is Bill Ayers has worked almost his entire life to bring down capitalism and overthrow the American way. He is a terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Ohhh...I see what the problem is here. It seems to me that, according to citation #10, Bill Ayers DID say that quote, but he ''did not say it in the context of the interview or in reference to Occupy Wall Street;'' he said it many years ago. So Bill Ayers DID say the quote, but he didn't say it in the context that the article seems to indicate. How about we reword the statement to make it very clear that Ayers did not say the quote recently or in regard to Occupy Wall Street, but at the same time clearly demonstrate Bill Ayers' ties to Occupy Wall Street and its similarities to Day of Rage? I think that would be a perfect compromise that would, most importantly, be truthful. I don't want Conservapedia to make up lies just because we think they point to the truth. That's just misguided. We should use the ''truth'' to demonstrate the truth, don't you agree? (Not trying to slander anyone's intentions here, mind you.) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:23, 24 November 2011 (EST)

== Somethings to consider about the article ==

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement wants the government to take action concerning their demands. Obama has received a lot of money from banks and Wall Street plus stepped up the war in Afghanistan. Obama has re-hired the bankster Ben Bernanke plus hasn't fired Timothy Geitner. Yet, the OWS movement isn't really putting much direct pressure on Obama. I am guessing you don't see many anti-Obama signs at their protests and rallies. So how successful can this movement really be for the next 12 months?

Second, the world banksters want to feed off the public trough (bailouts, [[Federal Reserve]], etc.) and the protesters want to feed off the public trough. To me at least, it largely seems to be a liberal vs. liberal struggle. The people of Iceland through a referendum told the banksters to get lost and they were not going to baii them out.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=127206] Over the short term, I am of the opinion that the banksters have a lot more sway with the Obama administration and with European Union commission officials than the protestors - especially since the OWS are not yet putting a lot of pressure directly on Obama. Plus, the European Union officials don't seem to be directly elected. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rfNlJMsFw Unelected Commission is the Government of Europe - Nigel Farage on Finnish TV]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:02, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== The American Nazi party ==

Does anybody really think that they're "liberal?" Can you picture them voting for Obama, or supporting affirmative action? Actually, here in Arizona, the neo-nazis all vote for Republicans, and even try joining the Republican party. Let's put them apart.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:02, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
:Well, they are siding with this liberal movement. Should we have two sections; one for liberals and one for extremists? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:45, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Yes. It feels as though lumping the Nazis in with liberals in general is inaccurate and contentious. And yes, there have been neo-nazis at tea parties--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:37, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Are many of the protestors pro-evolution like [[Adolf Hitler]]? Do they want heavy state interference with private enterprises like Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party? (see: [[Nazism and socialism]]). Has Obama or Nancy Pelosi denounced the anti-semitism which is occuring at Occupy Wall Street yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::OWS pretty pointless anyways. Obama and Washington is in the pocket of the banksters and the OWS people aren't about to put significant pressure on a liberal ally of crony capitalism like Obama. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Official list of supporters? ==

Considering the source I think calling it the "official list of supporters" is a bit unrealistic. If it were announced in the same way as their official demands I'd give you that. Those are some supporters but there are surely others. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:09, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

:There are probably other supporters of Occupy Wall Street, but [http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/ the official list of supporters] is the best reference to an "official" list because it also cites about 3 to 5 other references for each supporter. In my opinion, it would be more unrealistic to add supporters to the list who are not necessarily referenced as supporting the leftist protests in various sources. It's more accurate this way with less speculation. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Just a minor point about the list of supporters: can we please list them alphabetically by LAST name instead of FIRST name? Listing them by first name is just weird. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:06, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-24T17:06:29Z

StoryMaker: /* Official list of supporters? */ added "::Just a minor point about the list of supporters: can we please list them alphabetically by LAST name instead of FIRST name? Listing them by first name is ju

That list of demands does not appear to be an official list : http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

== Anarchism ==

I added the category for [[Anarchism]] but wondering if others feel the definition of anarchism on Conservapedia matches the demonstrations seen with [[Occupy Wall Street|OWS]]? These protests are anti-capitalist and anti-American, but are they currently seen as anarchists too? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:You are correct. It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits. They earned the anarchism category. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:21, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Demands ==

The very few "demands" that might resemble legitimate questions are discredited by skeptical accusations, or they are backed by some very extremist anti-American philosophies. Let's take a look at some of the ridiculous pro communist, anti-American demands made by socialists, anarchists and other extremist liberals who hate capitalism, are jealous of the Tea Party Movement, and/or getting paid to act as Wall Street protesters.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.}}

Beginning a protest "demand" list with an argument stating a convicted guilty person is "an innocent man" makes this occupation less credible. Capital punishment exists to deter the crimes that result in its use. Ending capital punishment, while seemingly good in its intention, would have negative consequences. For instance, ending capital punishment might result in more crime - criminal acts that might otherwise be deterred if Capital punishment was a considered form of justice.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.}}
I highly doubt the charges were "baseless." I don't know anyone who has been arrested for doing, very literally, nothing.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.}}
This is silly. Using the word "owned" suggests "half of the country's population" is literally enslaved without choice, and that someone who made something out of nothing but gained a lot of wealth in the process is evil. Demands like this suggest extreme positions are pushing this political spectacle in the form of a protest against Wall Street.

We can add '''Ending poverty is our one demand''' to the above, because it's redundant.

How do you go about ending "wealth inequality" or "poverty" anyway? Socialism? That's not gonna work; history has proven this. It won't happen.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.}}
I guarantee with 100% confidence that Yahoo board members didn't act in some conspiracy to block mass emails getting sent from occupywallst.org servers. For those who have ever worked in support for Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., you would know that there is a process which low tier support teams follow to determine what server are sending Spam and then block those IP addresses from doing so. These processes to block Spammers include the number of email users reporting email from spammers. If enough Spam is reported from an IP address, and it has been determined that a crap ton of email is being send from a particular server, some tier 3 Yahoo! support dude sitting in a chair at his desk probably just clicked a button to block the site after all the flags indicated him to do so, per a standard support model process.

That being said, ending corporate censorship would be interesting, which would include [http://www.bing.com/search?q=Googlegate Google - a search engine that has been known to censor conservative websites]. Perhaps the liberal, anti-American protestors might want to rethink this one.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.}}

This is straight up anti-American ranting, and spreading disinformation. But it is in-line with the [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|liberal false redefinition of the United States]], so I'm not surprised liberals added it to their list of "demands." Imperialist nations would not invade a country to topple a bad regime, rebuild the country into a more free democracy, and then hand back all government and military control to the people of that country. Running with an argument to end something that does not exist discredits this political campaign to 'occupy wall street'.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.}}

America is not at war with the world. It a small group of Leftist extremists who have, in their idealist views, quote "declared war" on America.

The only thing I think of when this political campaign mentions "99%" is that this must be the percentage of people the protesters are shouting at.

God bless the United States of America. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

These Marxists are trying to bring America to the edge. Down here in Florida us tea party patriots held a counter-rally to these communist protests. I think this is a well written article on how desperate the leftists are getting. Barry will NOT have a second term. [[User:Teapartyman]]

== Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!! ==

That wasn't Bill Ayers according to the link cited. The article is about ayers but has that comment thrown in "Those are the feelings of the far left who started to disrupt Wall Street on Saturday, September 17." The article makes no claims that that was said by Bill Ayers. Nor does that quote appear on his blog or anywhere(by him) as far as I can tell. Everything just seems to link back to the same story though most make no mention of Ayers at all. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 16:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I deleted the quote since it violates the first Conservapedia commandment and it was added back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 01:31, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ayers quote ==

Jpatt, I don't think anyone here would defend Bill Ayers, but you are attributing a quote to him that is not supported by the citation, unless I am misreading the citation. It may be that he thinks that (in fact, I'm pretty sure he does), but you're saying that he wrote that. And he simply did not. Why do you keep putting that back? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Honestly, I don't think he cares. It is very easy to prove that he didn't say it with a Google search. Despite one of the protests against Wiki it seems that libelous statements are just as difficult to get rid of here. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 16:27, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::Why do you think it is a "libelous" statement? You do know Bill Ayers '''is''' a terrorist, right? Are saying this in defense of Bill Ayers, suggesting the quote may somehow damage his reputation? Or are you simply pointing out that the content might no longer exists on the Internet?
::As you can see, someone added the citation needed template, which should have resolved this dispute for you. When I do a search for the quote, there are several sources with video references -- but unfortunately liberal Google owns YouTube and is very good about removing videos with content that may reveal the liberal agenda for what it really is. Likewise, if the quote was taken directly from Bill Ayers website, Bill the terrorist could have just as easily removed the content from his blog after realizing he revealed too much about his agenda. Everything Bill Ayers stands for is exactly as his quote reads.
::That being said, if it is not a verbatim quote from Bill Ayers, then I do understand you concern - just not your approach pointing it out. Jpatt is one of the most honest, credible editors on Conservapedia; it's disrespectful and incorrect to assume he would edit out of malice or libelous intent. Perhaps you could help find appropriate content to replace it with rather than simply delete a quote that is very likely to have been said by Bill the terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:54, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Mainly I said it because I figured it would get a reaction when nothing else seems to. I posted a question about it here and and on the pages of two people who added the quote back. No response was given to any despite what I would consider more than enough time(especially on a weekend). Whether it hurts Ayers' reputation is besides the point and I doubt he would actually care. He's pretty open about what he stands for and has no qualms about expressing it. But from everything I can find he did NOT say that. I spent a while searching yesterday. You can search as much as you want but there is no evidence to suggest he said that other than this page. The article that had been cited makes it pretty obvious that the quote was not his. It is pretty obvious to me that it is not his words. If nothing else I'm sure FOX would have made a news story about it. The fact is that we're supporting a lie here. I don't see how anyone could debate that. You can blame Google for removing things but that's an entirely different problem as far as I can see. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:10, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Point taken, but I don't think we're supporting a lie. Like most ongoing events with continuously updated content and sources, further edits and updates to this article will continue to occur. Instead of removing important content, try re-wording it or rephrasing it without taking away from the factual intent. Add some value to the article instead of removing valuable points and citations. The fact is Bill Ayers has worked almost his entire life to bring down capitalism and overthrow the American way. He is a terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Somethings to consider about the article ==

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement wants the government to take action concerning their demands. Obama has received a lot of money from banks and Wall Street plus stepped up the war in Afghanistan. Obama has re-hired the bankster Ben Bernanke plus hasn't fired Timothy Geitner. Yet, the OWS movement isn't really putting much direct pressure on Obama. I am guessing you don't see many anti-Obama signs at their protests and rallies. So how successful can this movement really be for the next 12 months?

Second, the world banksters want to feed off the public trough (bailouts, [[Federal Reserve]], etc.) and the protesters want to feed off the public trough. To me at least, it largely seems to be a liberal vs. liberal struggle. The people of Iceland through a referendum told the banksters to get lost and they were not going to baii them out.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=127206] Over the short term, I am of the opinion that the banksters have a lot more sway with the Obama administration and with European Union commission officials than the protestors - especially since the OWS are not yet putting a lot of pressure directly on Obama. Plus, the European Union officials don't seem to be directly elected. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rfNlJMsFw Unelected Commission is the Government of Europe - Nigel Farage on Finnish TV]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:02, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== The American Nazi party ==

Does anybody really think that they're "liberal?" Can you picture them voting for Obama, or supporting affirmative action? Actually, here in Arizona, the neo-nazis all vote for Republicans, and even try joining the Republican party. Let's put them apart.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:02, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
:Well, they are siding with this liberal movement. Should we have two sections; one for liberals and one for extremists? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:45, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Yes. It feels as though lumping the Nazis in with liberals in general is inaccurate and contentious. And yes, there have been neo-nazis at tea parties--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:37, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Are many of the protestors pro-evolution like [[Adolf Hitler]]? Do they want heavy state interference with private enterprises like Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party? (see: [[Nazism and socialism]]). Has Obama or Nancy Pelosi denounced the anti-semitism which is occuring at Occupy Wall Street yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::OWS pretty pointless anyways. Obama and Washington is in the pocket of the banksters and the OWS people aren't about to put significant pressure on a liberal ally of crony capitalism like Obama. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Official list of supporters? ==

Considering the source I think calling it the "official list of supporters" is a bit unrealistic. If it were announced in the same way as their official demands I'd give you that. Those are some supporters but there are surely others. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:09, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

:There are probably other supporters of Occupy Wall Street, but [http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/ the official list of supporters] is the best reference to an "official" list because it also cites about 3 to 5 other references for each supporter. In my opinion, it would be more unrealistic to add supporters to the list who are not necessarily referenced as supporting the leftist protests in various sources. It's more accurate this way with less speculation. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:44, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Just a minor point about the list of supporters: can we please list them alphabetically by LAST name instead of FIRST name? Listing them by first name is just weird. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:06, 24 November 2011 (EST)

Islam

2011-10-02T21:07:38Z

StoryMaker: /* Women in Islam */ Used to say women couldn't vote in Saudi Arabia, but this has recently been reversed. I changed the article to reflect this.

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]] (or often [[Mohammed]] and other variants), a seventh century [[Arab]], diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action. Muhammad was also born to the descendents of Abraham. Muhammed claimed to have received revelations from Allah via the archangel Gabriel, which were written in the [[Qur'an]] ([[Koran]]) - thus forming the core teachings of Islam. The word "Islam" means "submission" (to [[Allah]]) in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam teaches that one must gain salvation through submission to the one true God. Islam is known as one of the world's most violent religions; there have been over 16,000 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam since 2001.<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref> [[Liberals]] however, frequently ignore the violence of Islam (refering to critics as "racists" and "Islamophobes") while they focus on attacking Christianity, a religion with a long history of charity and self sacrifice.<ref>http://www.ccusa.org/</ref><ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref> Critics of this view often cite the Great Crusades--an unsuccessful attempt by Western Christians to retake parts of the Byzantine Empire that had been conquered by Islamic armies--and various religious wars which were later fought in Europe between branches of Christianity.

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" or "Moslem", a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)". The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref> Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", and "Saracen". Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusade era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the biblical connection of Hagar the mother of Ishmael who is reported as the patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

==Theology==
There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's ('''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) last and greatest [[prophet]]. The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Qur'an]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. The faith teaches that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Proclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Qur'an.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an (or Koran) to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Qur'an is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an was not written down in a systematic fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recitation. The Qur'an is considered by muslims to be the pure and holy word of God, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic theology the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Qur'an, only the delivering of the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is believed to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millenia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an]].
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]

==Today==
Islam is the worlds second largest religion, with over 1.6 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and redefinitions of the term 'Muslim'. Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Muslim population in the world.

==Historical Background==

According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (The Muslim god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.

The message to Muhammad was to be God's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to God; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca ,and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Muslim armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far off Iranian province of khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counter attacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar ,the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Muslim and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners, yet remain silent out of fear or disrespect for non-believing "infidels". Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed amongst the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. Islamic law standardised the situation on the Arabian peninsula, at a level slightly above the lowest,granting women limited rights an distinct legal individuals, a restricted right to divorce, and required her not to directly object to a marriage contract in order for it to have validity. It also limited polygamy to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. That was over a thousand years ago and there has been little progress since. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience. <ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref>.

Women are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard. For example, women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries lives women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. [[Honor killing]] is winked at.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, or working. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries were traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the freedoms women enjoy.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Whilst Muslim men control and oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings===
FGM (also known as female circumcision) is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Female circumcision is not called for nor is it supported by the Qur'an.

Another pagan practice practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly, "promiscuous" behaviour. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a more open lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practised more or less openly in some Muslim societies. Honor killings are not supported by the Qur'an and are directly commanded against with the Surah "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

==Islam and Christianity==
see [[Dhimma]]

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Qur'an 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> whilst women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamist groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include , but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen". The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the biblical mother of Ishmael. Ishmael in the Muslim faith plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]

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

[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:ObamaCare

2011-08-25T01:49:03Z

StoryMaker: /* Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act */

The caption is humorous, but somewhat frivolous for an encyclopedia. Good message, nontheless. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I deleted the reference in the "treatment of the elderly" section. It linked to an Onion article. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 16:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)

[[ObamaCare]] just kicked in. Health care prices increased across the board for me - directly due to Obama's "affordable" health care plan, and my employer said to "expect worse to come." She wouldn't even go into the details for how bad it will get under socialism, but it looked like she was going to start crying. I guess small businesses are already learning of the bad news before the storm actually hits. ...Oh, and now I'm also limited in the amount of doctor visits that I can take per year. I guess I have to make room for 30,000,000 people who will be receiving free health care, paid for by people like myself. Prescription costs increased for me, too. I wonder who I am now paying for to get free health care? Perhaps the unemployed who are already sucking taxpayer dollars out of the system - and probably have been doing so for the last two years. Or, maybe I'm paying the cost for a Public Union member, who is of course also seeking more bailouts for their pension. ...So, I guess this is what it's like to go from a [[Constitutional Republic]] to a [[Socialist]] [[Democracy]]. We are witnessing the fundamental transformation of the [[United States]], and it's truly one of the most tragic moments of our lives. How did we let this happen? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

== Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ==

It might be more appropriate to change to title of the page from "ObamaCare" to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" since it is now actual law instead of a series of health care proposals by the president. The first line of the page could be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Marqmike2|Marqmike2]] 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hmmm. The move makes sense to me, but maybe we should get a little more discussion. After all, conservatives (and maybe even everyone in general, I don't know) use ObamaCare more often, so even though "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" may be more accurate, "ObamaCare" is more familiar. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 21:49, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2011-08-25T01:40:04Z

StoryMaker: /* Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include... */

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of [[liberal style]]. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

==Censorship Complaint==

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:You hit the nail on the head: ''"Evolutionists say..."'' Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but ''saying'' it happened is far different from ''proving'' it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
:No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::::: 150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)

::::::: Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that ''from an evolutionary point of view'' there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)

:::::::: I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance. I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::The whale, a mammal, has many extraordinary characteristics that are not found in any other creatures. Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since. It is a counterexample to the [[theory of evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::You didn't look at any of those links that I provided at the top of the thread, did you? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:09, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I looked at those links, and again it's evolutionists ''saying'' it happened; they're not ''proving'' it happened. That is a situation that you, CecilQ, are choosing to ignore completely. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::I looked at those links also. The first one called it an "unfinished story," the second one is a link to Wikipedia, the third is a YouTube video, and so on. Those links are a far cry from openminded, rigorous science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::@Karajou: I say again: I am not saying that evolution ought to be accepted. This thread is about a specific alleged example of deliberate ignorance. I am trying to elicit exactly what it is about this particular example that smacks of deliberate ignorance.
:::::::::::::::@Aschafly: If you had read the links when you posted your comment of 22 March then I cannot understand how you could have written: "Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since". In all seriousness, are you suggesting that the black bear theory is the most plausible theory yet? Clearly, looking at those links, a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested. And isn't the fact that some evolutionists refer to it as an "unfinished story" indicative of open enquiring minds rather than deliberate ignorance? Working from within the evolutionary paradigm, just what is it about the proposed evolutionary path that is indicative of deliberate ignorance. I think it would be appropriate at this stage if you could provide specific details. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:52, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Darwin said black bears; then it changed to "dog-like" carnivores [http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/ancientwhales.htm]; now the latest scenario (read "excuse") is deer [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm]. Bambi meets Flipper? In this particular evo-story - and all of evolution in general - these "educated" men will come with any excuse, any scenario, any situation...anything under the sun, ''except'' Genesis, Chapter 1. They cannot tolerate the fact that there is a God who created everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... I think you'll find that the "dog-like" creatures and the "deer-like" creatures both exist in the current proposed evolutionary pathway. Pakicetus is described in your first article as having "dog-like legs" and Indohyus is described in your second article as being "deer-like". According to current evolutionary theory they are both related to whales (edit - although, in the case of Indohyus the relationship appears less certain). It is not as if there has been a movement from bears to dogs to deer (which appears to be what you are suggesting in your post). Rather, it is as I have described it above: "a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested".

Now, both you and I know that the Bible is 100% true and correct and that Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour. We also agree that evolution cannot possibly be right and that the Great Flood definitely definitely happened. However, this is an article on ''deliberate'' ignorance. The mere fact that we do not agree with someone's point of view does not mean that they are being deliberately ignorant. People can legitimately hold opposing views without deliberate ignorance being the necessary cause. For this whale item to be included in this article there really needs to be a more considered criticism than "Bambi meets Flipper". Can you point to any reference that indicates that deliberate ignorance is at work in relation to the suggested evolutionary pathway for whales? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 00:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:Cecil, the suggested evolutionary pathways ignore many unique features and characteristics of whales. Darwin lacked a plausible explanation ''because there is none within his theory''. Rather than address this, evolutionists ignore it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::Specifically what unique features and characteristics? Exactly what are they ignoring? And why do you say they are acting with ''deliberate'' ignorance? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Application To Delete the Entire Article ==

I think this entire article needs to be removed completely. It has no academic or intellectual value and is clearly put on the site for the purpose of targeting a specific group of people. It has almost no sources and gives no information. It does not belong on an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:40, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

:It has value and does provide information. Deliberate ignorance is something that could even be studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

::All this article does is call people the author doesnt like names. I suspect if I started posting other examples of deliberate ignorance, I'd get in trouble unless they were of people the author disliked. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== Un-American content ==

I feel that this should be edited:
<blockquote>

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

</blockquote>

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god".

== Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include... ==

I find the section past the "Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include" to be very lacking. Only one example is cited, so basically it's just a list of things that we think some liberals probably said at some point in time. As such, it is not really based on fact, but only on what we presume to be true. I find this to be dangerous and quite in-step with how some liberals behave in regard to conservatives, i.e. "I'm pretty sure I saw a Tea Partyer say something racist at some point, so I'm sure the Tea Party is racist" type of thinking. As such, I'm deleting the section and rewording the one quote that was sourced. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert, but I hope that if you do, you manage to find some sources to back up at least some of the claims listed. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 21:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think it should be deleted without first gaining some sort of consensus/discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:34, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh. Well, I already deleted it, heh heh...if you think there's more to be discussed, go ahead and revert. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 21:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Deliberate ignorance

2011-08-25T01:35:54Z

StoryMaker: Removed the section passed the

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. A related concept is the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]].
* Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while ignoring the faults of ones own (a particulary [[Liberal]] fault).
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
* Believing sentimental fallacies about public figures even when all the objective facts clearly indicate that said fallacies are false.
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christan heritage.

An example of deliberate ignorance in action can be found in Howard Dean, who, when faced by a fact ignored by liberals in June 11, 2008, stated that he found the fact "hard to believe".<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This refers to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2011-08-25T01:30:43Z

StoryMaker: /* Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include... */ new section

Deliberate ignorance

2011-08-25T01:18:07Z

StoryMaker: Removed the "add more", because it looks unprofessional and the list is already pretty long. If anyone wants to add more, they'll add more anyway.

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. A related concept is the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]].
* Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while ignoring the faults of ones own (a particulary [[Liberal]] fault).
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
* Believing sentimental fallacies about public figures even when all the objective facts clearly indicate that said fallacies are false.
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christan heritage.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

One-child Policy

2011-08-25T01:09:42Z

StoryMaker: /* Exceptions */ corrected a typo

The '''One-child Policy''', known also as the Family Planning Policy, is a policy in [[Communist]] [[China]], initiated in the 1980s, that prohibits any family in urban China from having more than one child. The policy does not apply to rural families. It is an attempt by the government to limit China's population and is often broken by citizens who can afford to pay the fines.

The policy is backed up by draconian laws that impose fines many times a poor person's annual income, and local officials are frequently known to coerce, or even force women who do not have a birth permit to undergo an abortion, because their own livelihoods are on the line if their district's birthrate exceeds the official quota. Couples who defy the policy may also lose their jobs.

In much of rural China, couples have a strong preference for male children for cultural and financial reasons. A male child will inherit the possessions of his parents, carry on the family name and any business, and work to support the parents when they are too old to support themselves. A female child, in comparison, will serve only to marry into another family, and contribute nothing to the property of her parents. Thus the demand for a male child is easily strong enough that rural families will often selectively abort baby girls before birth. This has already caused an asymmetry between China's male population and female population in some rural areas, with the male population vastly out-numbering the female population. And others speculate that China will become "the world's first gay superpower".<ref>''America Alone'' by [[Mark Steyn]].</ref>

===Exceptions===

In recent years, the Chinese government has created four exceptions to the policy. These are known as the Four Exemptions:

*The Minority Exemption (少数豁免), for couples with one or both being non-[[Han Chinese]].
*The Rural Exemption (农村豁免), for families in villages whose children help with the farming.
*The Elite Exemption (精华豁免), which is given to scholars, athletes, soldiers and others of great importance. This exemption is often given to powerful party officials and their children, this is used as an example of [[corruption]] in the party.
*The Wickedness Exemption (惨厉豁免), a punishment which forbids the person from having children. It is mostly used on criminals.

==References==
*[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/11/1171 The Effect of China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years]
*[http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ20i.html China's one-child policy and its effects on family dynamics]
*[http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/7/6/2/p107625_index.html The Effect of the One-Child Policy and Children’s Sex Composition on Birth Spacing in China, 1979-1993]
<references/>

[[category:Chinese Politics]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2011-08-03T23:07:09Z

StoryMaker: /* Bias against the US and Israel */ added a citation needed

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref>

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].{{fact}} At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2011-08-03T22:59:38Z

StoryMaker: /* In the "Bias Against the United States and Israel" section.... */ new section

== Redirect ==
Should [[BBC]] redirect here? Would seem logical. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

The source used to justify the statement that the BBC has a political bias is a newspaper which itself has a political bias (of the opposite extreme). That's mad. {{unsigned|Ferret}}

By its charter, the BBC is required to be impartial (which was e.g. an issue in the Hutton Inquiry); this - of course - is difficult to achieve and often leads to the accusation of being biased. IMHO, it would be useful to add this information into the text. {{unsigned|Gux}}

: Good idea. Please go ahead and add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I agree - it gets into just as much trouble with Labour governments as with Tory ones. To say it has an inherent liberal bias is misleading I think. Successive governments have taken a soft line on this because they understand that nobody wants a state broadcaster which feels unable to be critical of the government - that's the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships not in modern democracies. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I object to the liberal euphemism "license fee" instead of tax. The BBC gets revenues from a mandatory, govt-enforced tax on everyone with TV, regardless of whether they watch the BBC. That is a tax. Why call it a fee? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Licence fee is the official name for it. Only people who watch television have to pay it. We have many types of licence, for which a flat fee is payable, fishing, driving, pilot. It is the generally accepted term in the UK. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 18:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: In the USA and the rest of the world, it is called a tax. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::This 'Rest of the World' obviously doesn't include Albania, Austria, one of the three regions of Belgium, Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, Ghana, Mauritius, Nambia and South Africa. Those all also have TV licenses. If you include places that used to have one, but abolished it, for one reason or another, you can add Australia, another of the three regions of Belgium, Gibraltar, Hungary, India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Portugal to that list. And I'm not sure if that's the complete list. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:34, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:: I don't see the relevance of stating that Americans don't understand the funding structure of the ''British'' Broadcasting Corporation. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 19:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Strictly doesn't tax go to the government? All the lecnise fee goes to the BBC. The government don't get any of it. [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 18:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: The BBC is an agency of the UK government. Yes, the government collects a tax from the UK residents with TVs, and disburses the tax money to the BBC. Some British citizens don't like to admit that they get their news from official government radio and TV, but that's the way it is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:51, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:: The BBC is an autonomous public corporation established by a royal charter, in a similar way to many universities and professional bodies. It's an 'emanation of the state', but not part of the government. The distinction between state and government might be hard to fathom for those more familiar with the situation in the USA where state and government are often seen as synonymous. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:42, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what "liberal euphemism" means. The television licence fee is collected by (a company under contract to) the BBC, and is used solely to finance the corporation. None of it is collected by, or given to, the government. The BBC is not a state organisation; it guards its independence staunchly.

:::To say the BBC is financed by a tax gives the incorrect impression that the money is supplied by government funds. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

And some Americans don't like to admit that they get their news from for-profit corporations whose mandate is to increase shareholder wealth, but that's the way it is. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

This is slightly OT, but I have issues with people who complain about taxes. RSchlafly - do you not believe in your country? If you believe in it, and want to be a member of it, you must pay taxes. Otherwise you are a non-functioning member of society. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That is too simplistic a view of "tax", though, surely? I don't wish to fund the BBcs tosh, and I can't recall the last time I actually watched it. I'm still expected to stump up cash for it, however - despite paying separately for Discovery Channel, National geographic etc. Similarly, I don't use the Local Education Authority, NHS, pathetic local library, live in a small village with virtually no street lighting... I could go on - you get the idea. However, I am expected to pay taxes to provide all those things for someone else. Oh, and the vast over inflated salaries and feathered-nest pensions of MPs for whom I didn't vote and whom have never represented me or my constituency. Why? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:23, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

To stress the point to any Americans you do not HAVE to watch TV it is a choice therefore the TV Licence is not a tax it is more like a subscription to watch TV. However there is one section which is funded funded through taxation which is the BBC World Service which is funded through the FCO--[[User:Tracker|Tracker]] 19:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== Jerusalem, Israel ==

Just a little inconsistency that I saw. There's a line under the Accusations of Bias heading that says: "On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism for apologizing over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel." I'm not sure that such a statement really supports the idea that the BBC is biased - the major complaint has been that the BBC leans towards being anti-US and a social-liberal perspective. As a consequence, in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it has been seen to portray Israel negatively. But if you put the Jerusalem/Israel comment in, it directly contradicts the message that the rest of the article provides, which is that there is "institutional left-wing bias". I think we have to be careful between confusing errors with bias, because the BBC is obviously left-wing and to suggest otherwise (as this might indirectly do) would be descending to Wikipedia standards of information. I'm removing the comment for the moment, although if others want to put it in a new section under "errors" or something like that, go ahead. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 20:52, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:Calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel is ''supportive'' of Israel, but apologising for doing that is the opposite, i.e. showing an anti-Israel bias. Isn't that right? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:I think that such a conclusion should be made clearer, because it was lost on me. I'll make an edit and see how it goes. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:57, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Actually, it's my fault... I didn't read it carefully enough. Nonetheless, I've reinforced the statement to link it to the broader idea of anti-Israeli bias. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 22:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Thank you for doing so. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:12, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Isn't it nice how a bit of discussion can sort out these things? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==Source of criticism==

Deleted material:

:The BBC repeatedly says it is 'independent' but it clearly has an agenda all of its own. Furthermore, although the BBC is technically not-for-profit, it has an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is a major publisher in its own right.

I think this is correct, but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. This criticism needs reference to a quotation. Who charges that BBC has an agenda? (And what evidence do they give for this charge?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:09, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== Placement bias ==

I have added a load of stuff primarily around programming, funding, channels, news and internet. However, that new sectioned content has inevitably pushed down the section and sub-sections on accusations of bias. As I don't want to be accused of placement bias, I have pointed out in the intro that the BBC is often accused of bias and I have included criticisms of, say, the licensing fee within the relevant section. If you still think that the pushing down of the bias section still constitutes placement bias, please let me know or edit as you see fit. Thanks. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:45, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, and I apologise for the lack of cites. Please anyone feel free to add them. I haven't just made this stuff up - I just didn't have the time! [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== "They will need to be redone" ==

I'm okay with the British spelling, given the nature of the article. However, the passive voice of the statement 'they will need to be redone" leaves open the question of who will redo them. I did them once, including a few egregious spelling mistakes. I'm not redoing them again. Whoever broke it can fix it. [[User:BillyR|BillyR]] 11:23, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

== Spelling ==

Obviously this is an article about a British subject. Does anyone object to the all the US spelling in this article being changed to British?--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:27, 19 December 2008 (EST)

:yes that's a good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:29, 19 December 2008 (EST)

:*Check [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Spelling.2C_Grammar.2C_Style here.] The CP Manual of Style says:

<blockquote>
American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English.
</blockquote> --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_Broadcasting_Corporation&diff=next&oldid=570136 Given]] that there has been a bit of previous about this, thought it better to ask on the Talk Page first. Thanks for the reply.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

::*Understood. I think it is more of a matter of the user's spell checker, however, than it was of disliking the Brit spelling. However, as an American encyclopedia, students do need to be careful in using non-American spelling, otherwise American teachers will knock off points for incorrect spelling, which is the reason I have never supported non-standard spelling here. :-)- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Quote==
In a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on 3 August 2005, Oleg Antonovich Gordievsky, the highest-ranking KGB defector, stated,

"Just listen with attention to the ideological nuances on Radio 4, BBC television, and the BBC World Service, and you will realise that communism is not a dying creed."

The problem is that (surprisingly) this comes from the WP article on him, with no other verification, and all other references Google gives are from that page. I see CP does not allow copying from WP, and wonder if this should or can be included. The statement certainly is true.

Well researched documentary about the role that spy played, and Reagan's aversion to Armageddon (his use of the term) here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1630001170436508560[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:57, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

==Licence Fee==

Should we stress that this is a VERY strict policy? If you are late people come to your door and you can be fined and even jailed for owning a television with no "license."[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] 9:27, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== In the "Bias Against the United States and Israel" section.... ==

You find this statement:

:During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a Bible being thrown away, but would not do the same with a Koran.

Considering the nature of this statement, I think a citation is in order... --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 18:59, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

British Broadcasting Corporation

2011-08-03T22:54:31Z

StoryMaker: "like wise" => "likewise"

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref>

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

Talk:Richard Nixon

2011-08-03T22:51:13Z

StoryMaker: /* A better lead? */ new section

Do we have to mention Nixon resigned twice? Doesn't that detract a little from more of his accomplishments, many of which are not stated here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Considering much of the watergate scandals are not "stated here", I'd say it's fairly well balanced.

:I'd say it needs some serious reorganization, though. I keep looking at it, trying to figure how to move all that text around so it makes sense (flows well), and then I keep giving up. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I have the childhood info, and some other to add. Just under the weather pretty bad right now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Watergate==
The Watergate stuff is good; however, because Nixon (a) had no prior knowledge of the break-in, and (b) did not give prior consent to the break-in, some of the excessive detail on this page gives undue weight to a common misperception that "Nixon was behind it".

As a solution, much of this material is very good to be included elsewhere, but I firmly beleive it is extremely prejudicial and damaging to Mr. Nixon's posthumous reputatation in such as way as to be grossly unfair. Watergate is not Nixon's legacy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is impossible to slander/libel the dead. Further, info on all presidential scandals ought to be added. I did try to make up for it by including info about Nixon's military service. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, it looks prejudicial because there's not much there--get on it son! ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::But that's the point, there's too much detail about the planning of the breakin, who was invovlved, etc. This for example,

:::''it soon became evident, from hints that emerged at the trial and other details revealed in a series of articles by the Washington Post, that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials''

::is a gross distortion long time Nixon wathcers have become accustomed to. Nixon ''is not'' one of these "higher-level government officials", and yet this is used to introduce the Watergate section. This is Nixon's bio, not H.R., Erlichman, Dean, Liddy, or whoever else "gave approval". Simply put, it's innuendo, and it's a restatement of the same type of innuendo we've heard for 30+ years now. I just don't beleive carrying these kind of distortions of fact will work in CP. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it belongs in the Watergate article, too, but a synopsis of the affair belongs here--just as it does in the Whitewater and Teapot Dome examples. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[Watergate scandal]] has this,
::''Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. ''
:If we just flip-flopped some of the information between pages, it would work. For this bio page, Nixon's invovlement stems from his being over-loyal to wayward subordinates who acted without his prior knowledge or consent. His real failing was being loyal to them, rather than cleaning house of rascals that got him in trouble in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::How i this inaccurate? I am willing to make changes, but the watergate scandal article is not the place to begin with citing material. That is only self-referential then. Here is the way Nixon's involvement reads right now:

::''"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. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power."''

::Why don't we parse this here and work out a compromise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

===proposed text===

The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on 9 August 1974. Nixon had no prior knowledge of a plan to burglarize [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, yet his loyalty to subordinates led Nixon to approve covering up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay the legal expenses of convicted burglarers. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resign 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]]," although nobody had been killed, led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|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. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"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 [[Aug. 9, 1974]]. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon, in order to heal the great national rift he perceived might occur if the issue remained open. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Nixon's supposed conservatism ==

Considering that Nixon was hardly a conservative, I'd suggest having a smaller entry for his name. Or perhaps one that highlights his liberal record. I mean: OSHA, EPA, supporting women's rights, the Endangered Species Act, coddling the Commies in China. It doesn't make since that the entry on Bill Clinton is more critical than a President who was more to the left than Bubba![[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:11, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:There is some merit in this idea, however I would propose it be presented as Nixon's centrism, moderate views, willingness to compromise & get along, tolerance of diversive views and opinions, and adhering to the established order--the established order in this sense being Keynsian [[New Deal]] economics. Nixon's embrace of [[New Deal]]ism led to re-establishing the commie infested Roosevelt Adminstration's Wage and Price Controls (see [[OPA]]). This had a lingering effect on the conservative movement. For example [[Ed Clark]] challenged [[Ronald Reagan]] on the [[Libertarian Party]] ticket in 1980, siphoned off economic conservative votes which was the keystone of [[Reaganomic]]s, and divided the movement. Clark said he did it cause it was the last GOP President who reverted to commie/Democrat decrees that infringe on personal human and civil rights. We can only speculate, Reagan's popular win probably would have been even greater if not for the sins of Nixon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:07, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

At least you're willing to admit that Nixon was a commie! [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:12, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:Not a commie, but Nixon was tolerant of commies and thier establsihed order. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

=="involved in an alleged attempt"==
How can one be invovled in something that allegedly happened? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Nixon&curid=4878&diff=830108&oldid=829011&rcid=950163] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:02, 27 November 2010 (EST)

== A better lead? ==

I personally think the lead to this article could use some improvement...on many other articles on presidents, the lead gives a general summary of the president's accomplishments, downsides, and ideology (usually in relation to conservatism). I don't see that on Nixon's, though; it's just general stuff about what he did before being president and a brief mention of Watergate and his resignation. As a student, I want to get the general "feel" of a president's ideology and policy early on; I don't get this here. Anyone up to improving it? (I could help possibly, but I don't know much about the subject matter...) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 18:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

2011-08-03T20:20:59Z

StoryMaker: /* "Criticism" section */ new section

FDR was a socialist, and probably the last US president to describe himself thus.

#FDR was perhaps the most openly socialist leader ever to occupy the White House, and his policies reflected a firm belief that government should control business and redistribute wealth. [http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update03.22.04.htm The Liberty Committee (a lobbying group)]
#Many attacked Roosevelt as a socialist, but he ardently refuted these accusations and the principles of Marxism. In truth, Roosevelt did not despise big business. In fact, he realized that the trusts in the latter half of the nineteenth century had indirectly increased the standard of living for nearly every American. He did, however, dislike the power of the trusts and the fact that the American public had little control of them. Yet, at the same time, he feared giving too much power to labor. His Square Deal policies attempted to strike a balance between the two. [http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/troosevelt/context.html]

There is controversy over whether he was [[socialist]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Please don't delete the section on his decision to run for a third term before somebody writes an article on the Constitution in exile movement. I see the latter as absolutely central to modern conservatism, which is as much a reaction against Franklin Roosevelt as anything.

By the way, #2 above refers to THEODORE, not Franklin Roosevelt. Ironically, fans of Franklin typically designate Theodore as the last great Republican President. #1 is interesting, but Roosevelt never said, "''We desire not just equality in theory and opportunity, but equality as a fact and a result,''" as Lyndon Johnson did. Of course, Johnson didn't make [[Henry Wallace]] his vice-presidential nominee, either.

I believe it was with FDR that the Democratic Party moved from being a party of the uneducated masses to the representative of those segments of the elite which are pragmatic, yet a little jumpy. Whether one is a Democrat or Republican largely depends on which of the latter two adjectives one believes predominates.--[[User:Amyz]] 16:10, May 7, 2007 (EDT)

What does that thing mean when it says "specialized knowledge"? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Disambiguation==

"Roosevelt" should not redirect here. There should be a disambiguation page that can specify which Roosevelt. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:43, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
[[Theodore Roosevelt]] was also a famous President for another thing. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The whole article needs to be moved. Again. Look at any history book or encyclopedia; he is never referred to as Franklin Roosevelt, but always as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Same for any search...you are taken to Franklin D. on Google when you search plain Franklin. What were you guys thinking in re-directing it here? The template is wrong as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anatomically impossible act==

This language obviously was cleaned up:

:"In August 1939...Assistant Secretary of State Adolph A. Berle, disclosed that a Soviet espionage cell was operating in the State and Treasury departments that included [[Hiss]] and [[Harry Dexter White]]... The president coldly told Berle to perform an anatomically impossible act [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_17/ai_80900413]

In keeping with our family friendly Commandments, should this be included? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

*IMO it could be safely paraphrased as "where the sun doesn't shine". Or the like, and link to the historically correct quote in the citations, eh? How is that for family-friendly and diplomacy? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:11, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

==conservative aspects==

FDR has been described as one of the most conservative presidents, because he made just enough liberal changes to the role of the govt to save conservatism as a whole. Some say that without the changes he made, the U.S. risked a revolution, perhaps communist or fascist, like in several European countries at the time. I need to find a source for this, but I think it is worth adding. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 17:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Fourth term/ALP ==

The section on Roosevelt's fourth term states, "It was 825,000 votes from Earl Browder and Sidney Hillman's American Labor Party that gave him his majority." This is complete nonsense. Roosevelt's popular vote margin in 1944 was 3,594,987. In the Electoral College, a minimum of 6 additional (large) states would have had to have been carried by Dewey for the Republican to win the presidency. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== proof ==

I'd like a citation for this passage-

"Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular, it has been argued by scholars and analysts then and now that many New Deal relief efforts actually helped to prolong the Great Depression. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased American foreign aid. Some of these policies were coupled with a persistent high level of unemployment "

== Term of Office ==

I would like to add a footnote to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's term of office section. Is there any way that this can be done? [[User:Malveramenso|Mal]] 16:31, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==HaHa==
"While the Democrats were damning Hoover as a big spender" Was this meant to be a joke? It struck me funny, Hoover damn, ya'know? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 19:48, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::No--that line appealed to a lot of conservatives who distrusted Hoover. Just like Democrats in 2008 attack Bush deficits. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:00, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== focus on FDR ==

This article is about FDR and so I dropped all sorts of extraneous stuff. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:Complimenting your writing prowess is sort of like bringing those old coals of yore to Newcastle, Richard, but nevertheless a masterful work! Perhaps some of that extraneous material can be gathered into some sort of critique of the New Deal? Personally, I would like to see RobS's ''[[New Ordeal]]'' expanded, and perhaps some of the removed material can find a new life there? Thoughts? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. The extraneous stuff is mostly about Communist spies and can go into another article. Libertarian criticism of the new Deal also should have its own article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:56, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I'll review it tomorrow, but as I remember it, much of the spy stuff crossover is in the Hiss article, maybe. Occurs to me encyclopedias need a new indexing system, perhaps not invented, that reads as a narrative, to help with logical progression learning......instead of the piecemeal method used for centuries. Oh well, educational methods are over my my pay grade! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:21, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::::I agree the Hiss article shows the way to handle this material.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:57, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

=="China"==
Because of the nature of the controversy later, i.e. policy subversion, the ambiguity of this statement, "He was a strong supporter of China" must be clarified.

I ''do not'' think it can be argued that FDR was "a strong support of Maoist China," or the Comintern, or the CCP, or the trusted appointees of his Brain Trust responsible for subverting ''his'' own policy. The Kuomintang was a signer of the Joint Four Power Moscow Declaration in October 1943 [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_War_II#cite_note-29]; FDR spoke of the "Four Policemen" which was a reference to China under Chaing Kai-shek, not Mao. We need to be absolutely clear on this point, at this junction of FDR's bio, ''which'' China we are speaking about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::FDR talked a lot about his strong support for China, meaning Nationalist China (Chiang)...and he met Chiang in person and insisted on a UN security council seat for him. I don't think he ever mentioned Mao. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
:::So you agree, just as we distringuish between Wiemer Germany and the Third Reich, or Vichy France and the Free French, likewise we need to distinguish between Kuomintang China and Maoist China. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::::yes indeed I agree. in discussing WW2 every historian uses thr term "China" to refer to the country Chiang headed (and NOT to Mao's small area or to Japan's large area of control). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:15, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::I'm not certain of "every historian," and/or a claim of any one person claiming to speak for them all. But Conservapedia definitely needs to delineate the differance, and here is perhaps a very good starting point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:48, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::the FDR article just touches on China because there are lots of other topics to summarize, the articles on the [[KMT]], Chiang. Mao, and China are the right places. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:18, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::"China" is ambiguous, and it masks the true nature of a domestic partisan controversy later. FDR lent specific moral and material support to a regime, the KMT, not a geograpical expression, "China." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:33, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

== ending the depression ==

There is no question that FDR ended the depression. the debate is whether he could have done so earlier. Would Hoover's reelection in 1932 have ended the depression earlier? no conservative historian has made that argument. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:13, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Yes there is question that FDR ended the Depression. Just because he was president long enought to finally, finally see the Depression end does not mean that he was responsible for it ending. Faulty logic there.

:No one is claiming that Hoover's policies were effective. Hoover was a RINO who was about to run as a Democrat with Roosevelt in 1920 and believed from his time under Wilson and Harding that government intervention was the best way to solve unemployment. In fact, economists blame the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill for severely worsening the Depression.

[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0DE0D7123FE432A25757C0A9629C946195D6CF]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03EEDB133AE433A25754C1A9619C946696D6CF][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9904E5DB1F38E533A25755C0A9649D946896D6CF][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E5D81131E03ABC4953DFB266838B639EDE]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06E5D8123FE432A25751C0A9629C946195D6CF][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A01E0DB1131E03ABC4B51DFB466838B639EDE]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E6DF1F3AE433A25752C3A9659C946195D6CF]
[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B1EFB3A5513738DDDA90A94D9415B828FF1D3]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9401E0D6133AE033A25755C1A9679C946195D6CF]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9503E6DF1F3AE433A25752C3A9659C946195D6CF]
[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D06E1DF143EE13ABC4153DFB466838B639EDE]
[https://nber15.nber.org/bookcv_1/BUSINESS%20CYCLES%20AND%20UNEMPLOYMENT-HOOVER_HERBERT-1923.CV.pdf]
[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm]

:However, it is a red herring to suggest that Hoover's failure implies that Roosevelt was successful in ending the Depression. The Depression did not end until 1941. Unemployment was still 20% in 1938 and 15% in 1940. New Deal programs, like the WPA, CCC, TVA etc. simply did not make a dent in the unemployment in the 1930s. Liberals will argue, just like supporters of Obama's stimulus plan that implementation was not quick enough. I argue that such progams are inherently unworkable and unsustainable. World War II, a war that killed 60 million people, is what ended the Great Depression, not FDR's New Deal of the 1930s. Thus, I will revert back to a more neutral and less liberal introduction. I welcome any comment.

[http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Unemployment_300g15.gif]

:[[User:Brown25|Brown25]] 20:13, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

There was at one time a citation to ''New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis'', Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, Journal of Political Economy, volume 112 (2004), pages 779–816, as well as an analysis published by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Board. Now there is some poll cited of supposed scholars (of course Haynes & Klehrs make a pretty good case about challenging any of the conventional wisdom among academics about the New Deal era. [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/in-denial-by-john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr-9668]) These may very be the same scholars researching the Slime Mold Beatle [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/april05/slime-mold.bush.cheney.ssl.html] commenting on subjects outside thier area of qualification. Such is the state of modern day scholarship. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:10, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::anyone who want a conservative interpretation of the economics of the depression should read my articles, especially [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/causes-cures.pdf "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression" (1989)] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:21, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you. I promise I'll review the material over the holiday and comment later. One question, please. You extend special thanks to [[Eugene Genovese]]; is this the same Eugene Genovese in Ron Radosh's (author of the ground breaking & definitive [http://www.raleighspyconference.com/docs/NY_Sun_Review.pdf ''Rosenberg File'']} piece, ''Eugene Genovese:Rise of a Marxist Historian''? [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ192663&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ192663]Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:49, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::On Genovese--yes and no: It's the same person but he moved from being a marxist in the 1960s to a strong conservative in the 1980s (and today).see [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v49/ai_19170058/ "The Genoveses find God" in National Review, Feb 24, 1997] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:00, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes thank you. Recently I've finished Radosh's memoir, ''Commies'' and that's why the name jumped out at me. He says in the link you provided only two years earlier (1995) he still was an athiest, so huis conversion comes in the post-Soviet era. Nonetheless, the essay you cite authored by you dates from 1989. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:36, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::I believe Genovese was still an atheist in the 1980s, but he had rejected the left and was already a conservative in terms of American history. We had a number of conversations starting about 1979 and I watched him move to the right.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:58, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::I've taken on more than I can chew at the moment; Sorry, but I'll have to put the above piece on hold, but am going forward with the [[Joseph Lash]] bio. And thanks for the information you sent. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:15, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::good luck! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:45, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::TY. On Joe Lash (this may not be the place to discuss this), I think it can be establish the AYC was established as a [[commie front]] in 1934; I see you reverted the portion about being a [[Comintern affiliate]] from the text, and elsewhere stated Lash quit "after the reds took it over" c. 1940. Is this in dispute whether it was in fact a commie front at the time of Lash's leadership, or are you simply looking for a cite? (You can respond at AYC/Talk). Thanks again. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== "Criticism" section ==

The "Criticism" section at the bottom of the page seems to contain some truth, but it also seems really random, as if someone just tacked it on there just because it sounded nice and not because it fit with the article. It doesn't seem like it should go in the "Legacy" section, and seems more like a simple commentary than anything even mildly encyclopedic... I mean, no offense to the person who put it there; it's a NICE commentary, it just doesn't belong ''here.'' If there are no objections I think I'll remove it... --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 16:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Franklin D. Roosevelt

2011-08-03T20:08:51Z

StoryMaker: made an "O" lowercase where it should

{{Officeholder
|name=Franklin D. Roosevelt
|image=509px-FDR in 1933.jpg
|party=[[Democratic]]
|spouse=[[Eleanor Roosevelt]]
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=32nd
|terms=March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945
|vp=John N. Garner (1933–1941) Henry A. Wallace (1941–1945) Harry S. Truman (1945)
|preceded=[[Herbert Hoover]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Harry S. Truman]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=44th
|state=New York
|terms=January 1, 1929 – December 31, 1932
|preceded=Alfred E. Smith
|former=y
|succeeded=Herbert H. Lehman
}}
}}
'''Franklin Delano Roosevelt''' was the 32nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1933-45. He presided over the majority of the [[Great Depression]], which did not end until the attack on [[Pearl Harbor]]<ref>[http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Unemployment_300g15.gif Unemployment Graph during the Great Depression]</ref>, and led the United States in [[World War II]] against the [[Axis Powers]]; he built the '''[[New Deal Coalition]]''' of voters and interest groups which dominated American politics into the 1960s.

He is still the great hero to liberals but castigated by conservatives for shifting the nation to the left, growing the federal government, imposing regulations on business, following a no-growth economic policy, catering to labor unions, and building a permanent [[New Deal Coalition]]. On the other hand, conservatives admire his strong military leadership that led the Allies to victory in record time in World War II.

His [[New Deal]] was a very large, complex interlocking set of programs designed to produce '''relief''' (especially government jobs for the unemployed)<ref>[http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/130/entry/ Works Progress Administration (WPA): One Failure to End the Great Depression]</ref>, '''recovery''' (of the economy), and '''reform''' (by which he meant regulation of Wall Street, banks and transportation), as well as Reelection (in 1936, 1940 and 1944) and Realignment of the [[Fifth Party System]]. Conservatives strongly opposed many, but not all, of the New Deal programs. Conservatives abolished most of the relief programs when unemployment practically ended during World War II. Most of the regulations on business were ended about 1975-85, except for the regulation of Wall Street by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]], which still exists. The major surviving program is [[Social Security]], which Congress passed in 1935.

Conservatives at the time denounced his bids for presidential power, including building a national political machine through the [[WPA]] (it lasted from 1935 to 1943), attempting to take control of the Supreme Court by adding new liberal judges (an attempt which failed, 1937), and trying to purge the Democratic party of conservative congressman (an attempt which failed in 1938). The failures of those attempts can be attributed to the [[Conservative Coalition]] which emerged in Congress in 1937 as a coalition of most Northern republicans and most Southern Democrats.<ref>There were very few Southern Republicans in office.</ref>.

After 1938 FDR turned his attention to [[World War II]]. He was a strong supporter of [[China|Nationalist China]] under General [[Chiang Kai-shek]] against Japan; most conservatives agreed on that point. FDR also was a strong supporter of military aid to Britain. Conservatives split on that, with the "isolationists" (like [[Robert Taft]]) opposed, and "interventionists" (like [[Henry Stimson]]) in favor. Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into the war in December, 1941; all conservatives then strongly supported the war effort. They generally approved FDR's military leadership, although they were highly critical of his close cooperation with [[Stalin]] and the Soviet Union.

FDR was the first and only President to be elected four times, breaking the traditional two-term-limit precedent established by [[George Washington]].<ref> Tradition was restored by the 22nd Amendment in 1947.</ref>

Roosevelt's health failed rapidly in 1944-45, even as he ran for reelection. He died on April 12, 1945. Despite polio which permanently crippled him starting in the early 1920s, he exuded a sense of confidence and hope for the future that made for a charismatic personality.

Scholars generally agree that relief efforts actually helped to prolong the [[Great Depression]]. It was only later that World War II brought a return to near full employment for every sector of the economy.

==Early Life==
Franklin was born to two old families, both based in upstate New York: the Dutch Roosevelts, and the Yankee Delanos. His father James Roosevelt (1828-1900), a wealthy railroad executive, was never close to Franklin and died when he was in college. Franklin was the only son of Sara Roosevelt (1854-1941), who exerted tight control over the family money, and tight psychological control over Franklin, until the day she died in 1941. The Delanos made their money in trading with China (originally, in selling opium); Sara was a world traveler who raised her son with the aid of tutors until he went to [[Groton]] at age 14; by that time Franklin had been to Europe many times and spoke fluent French and German. He was a gentleman at Harvard College, where he edited the student newspaper. He graduated from Columbia Law School, and was a successful lawyer before entering politics in 1910, and again while out of politics in the mid-1920s.

==Eleanor Roosevelt==
see [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]

Eleanor Roosevelt, a fifth cousin, became engaged to FDR in 1903; they were married on March 17, 1905 in New York; her uncle President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] gave the bride away. She and Franklin lived with his mother Sara, who controlled financed and controlled the raising of her grandchildren. By the 1920s Eleanor was living apart in a separate cabin on the Roosevelt estate at Hyde Park.

Six children followed in rapid succession, with all but one surviving infancy: Anna Eleanor, James, Franklin (died 1909), Elliott, a second Franklin Delano, and John Aspinwall.

FDR was elected as a Democrat to the New York State Senate in 1910, but the family remained in New York City. In 1913 the family moved to Washington where Franklin was the powerful and popular Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I.

Very shy at first, Eleanor kept a low profile during World War I. She became more accustomed to the limelight when Franklin was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1920, and when he was elected governor of New York in 1928 and 1930. After he contracted polio she became much more active, serving as his spokesperson at many meetings around the state and advocated for womens issues inside the Democratic party.

The Roosevelt marriage collapsed in 1918 when Eleanor discovered Franklin had a lover.<ref> Lucy Mercer (later Lucy Rutherfurd) was only the first of several known FDR lovers; Lucy was with FDR when he died. Joseph Persico, ''Franklin and Lucy: President Roosevelt, Mrs. Rutherfurd, and the Other Remarkable Women in His Life'' (2008) </ref> Divorce was politically impossible, love was absent. The solution was independence. Since the public knew nothing about the affairs (and historians did not learn until after Eleanor's death), the couple kept up appearances. Eleanor increasingly built her own career, all the while supporting the more liberal and leftist personalities and ideas that were in the air.

==1920s==
In 1920 Roosevelt was the Democratic nominee for Vice President. He lost in the Harding landslide, but the fact that he won the nomination demonstrates that Democrats looked upon him as their new hero. In 1921 FDR became ill with [[poliomyelitis]], Eleanor became his helpmate through his serious health problems. The polio left FDR without the use of his legs, confined to a wheelchair for the most part. However, he did not allow this disability to end his political career; indeed it made him psychologically stronger and more determined to bring hope to people faced with poor odds in life.

In 1928 Franklin Roosevelt was elected governor of [[New York]], despite a narrow victory in the state by Republican presidential candidate [[Herbert Hoover]]. FDR was reelected governor in a landslide in 1930. As governor of the leading financial state he did nothing to prevent the Wall Street Crash of 1929 or solve the emerging financial depression, but he did begin a relief program that followed the Hoover Administration guidelines.

== Election of 1932 ==
:''Main article : [[United States presidential election, 1932]]''
With the economy continuing a downward spiral despite Hoover's efforts, a Democratic victory seemed certain. Roosevelt needed two-thirds of the delegates too get the nomination. He easily beat out [[Al Smith]], his former close ally. FDR won the nomination with the aid of powerful publisher [[William Randolph Hearst]] (still a liberal at the time), and the Texas delegation led by House Speaker [[John Nance Garner]]. Garner was given the vice presidency. Smith in 1932, Hearst in 1934, and Garner in 1937 all broke with FDR, becoming bitter enemies.

The election was a rout, with Democrats winning sweeping majorities in Congress and control of state governments in all parts of the country. Hoover tried to coordinate national policy with FDR during the long interregnum between the November election and the March 4 inauguration, but Roosevelt refused to cooperate.

== First Term ==
[[File:Newdealstamp.png|thumb|280px|1998 US stamp celebrates alphabet agencies of New Deal]]

===New Deal===
:''For Main Article see '''[[New Deal]].'''''

FDR is most famous for his [[New Deal]], a set of programs designed to produce recovery from the Depression, reform so it would never happen again, and relief for the tens of millions suffering severe hardships.

FDR's favorite program--and the nation's favorite as well, was the [[Civilian Conservation Corps]], begun in springc 1933. The CCC sent several hundred thousand young men at a time -- 2.5 million in all by 1943 -- to newly formed work camps for 6-month stints. There were no uniforms or military drills. It was strongly approved at the time by conservatives and liberals alike, including most religious and business leaders as a way to save the boys who were perpectually unemployed and drifting into gangs. The CCC was ended in 1943 when the need had vanished.

In 1934-35 the '''Second new Deal''' showed Roosevelt moving left. Key innovations included the Wagner Act (1935) that created the [[National Labor Relations Board]] and allowed [[Labor unions]] to rapidly expand. The [[WPA]] was a federalized relief program, in which 2+ million unemployed workers were hired by the federal government to work on projects sponsored by local government. Most important of all was the Social Security program, passed over intense Republican opposition.

==Second Term==
Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

===Court packing scheme===

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. [[Tommy Corcoran]]<ref>After World War II Corcoran employed Soviet agent [[Duncan Lee]] in his Washington law firm, Corcoran and Youngman. FBI Silvermaster file biographical details on [[Duncan C. Lee]], [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s allegations concerning him, his contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] and [[Mary Price]], [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster092.pdf Vol. 92, pgs. 20 - 21] pdf, January 26, 1947. On June 6 1945, 6 persons, including U.S. government officials [[Andrew Roth]] and [[John Stewart Service]], were arrested on [[conspiracy]] and [[espionage]] charges related to possession of roughly 1000 stolen classified Government documents in the offices of ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine. ''Amerasia'', edited by [[Philip J. Jaffe]], had published classified materials verbatim from the United States wartime intelligence service, the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS). ''Amerasia's'' chief financial benefactor was [[Frederick V. Field]]. [[Joseph Milton Bernstein]], a [[GRU]] contact between Soviet agents in the OSS and the [[Board of Economic Warfare]], was also an employee. Others connected with the ''Amerasia'' scandal were [[T.A. Bisson]] and [[Owen Lattimore]]. Corcoran worked with the [[Truman administration]] to cover up the scandal.</ref> was given the task by Roosevelt to persuade Congress to pass the proposed legislation. [[I. F. Stone]] of the ''New York Post'', who was later to work for the Soviet [[KGB]], wrote speeches for Corcoran to promote this issue. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative Coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

===Double dip recession===

When FDR was inaugurated for his second term [[national income]], [[payroll]]s, and industrial production<ref>League of Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, June, 1936. Percentage change 1929 to March 1936, United States -21.8%, rank number 13.</ref> were still 20 per cent below the 1929 figure and construction was still only about one third what it had been in 1929 when the nation had a booming economy due to massive speculation that would ultimately lead to the stock market crash. By June, 1937 the Treasury boasted relief payments were less than in the same period the preceding year. But this was not so. The Treasury made a practice of cooking the books and producing phony numbers. It merely shifted relief payments to other accounts. They were, in fact, larger than the year before. Stock prices declined and by September the reality could be no longer hidden. By the end of October the market crashed. The budget was running a [[deficit]] at the time $300,000,000 a month.

FDR told [[DNC]] Chairman James Farley he would have "to go in for pump priming or relief," but as Farley explained FDR complained he could not spend on local projects because the states and cities did not want any more buildings and institutions which they would have to support in perpetuity. They were having trouble enough paying the bills of those already built. Roosevelt revealed to Farley that many [[WPA]] projects approved by the government were abandoned because the states and cities could not raise the money to support them. In the 1938 Congressional elections Harry Hopkins was spending as fast as he could without any regard to utility to meet the immediate political necessities of an election but couldn't go on indefinitely. And the whole problem was complicated by pressure from within his own party to balance the budget.
[[Image:Flatgrowth.JPG|thumb|300px|right|Real Output and Growth remained stagnant throughout the New Deal largely due to government involvement. The Depression came back with a vengeance in 1937-1938.<ref>''New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis, ''Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, Journal of Political Economy, volume 112 (2004), pages 779–816.</ref>]]
New capital made available for investment amounted to $348,000,000 in 1935. This was less than 1/10th of the amount available in 1929. By contrast, the British economy had nearly recovered to its 1929 levels by 1935, and the amount available for investment was almost twice as much as the United States.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! United States <ref>Standard Statistics Co., ''New Honey for Operating and Producing.''</ref>
! Great Britain <ref>Midland Bank, London, ''New Issues for British Companies,'' converted from £ to $ at $4.8665.</ref>
|-
| 1927
| $3,201,000,000
| $710,509,000
|-
| 1928
| 3,062,000,000
| 983,033,000
|-
| 1929
| 3,668,000,000
| 759,174,000
|-
| 1930
| 3,039,000,000
| 394,186,500
|-
| 1931
| 1,006,000,000
| 155,728,000
|-
| 1932
| 321,000,000
| 248,191,500
|-
| 1933
| 177,000,000
| 296,856,500
|-
| 1934
| 356,000,000
| 350,388,000
|-
| 1935
| 348,000,000
| 666,710,500
|-

|}

The country now reached a greater crisis than in 1933. The [[National debt]], which was $22 billion when Roosevelt took office and largely a heritage of [[World War I]], now was $37 billion. Taxes had been more than doubled by Roosevelt.

By April 1938 [[unemployment]] reached several thousand more than when Roosevelt was elected in 1932. This was now Roosevelt’s Double Dip Depression. Voices began to speak up suggesting after all Hoover may have known what he was doing, but here, nine years after the Depression began the fundamental condition of the country was no further advanced than it was at the end of Hoover's three year struggle with it.

The Second Term was a failure, for FDR had overreached and his efforts to fight the conservatives in the business community, the GOP and his own party (in the South) produced a backlash against excessive presidential control. With war braking out in Europe in 1939, FDR turned to foreign affairs.

== Third Term ==
Early in 1939 FDR made up his mind to seek a third election in the [[United States presidential election, 1940|presidential election of 1940]]. FDR realized the political difficulties involved in a third nomination so he concocted a "draft Roosevelt" movement. He kept other candidates dangling in hope, including Democratic National Committee Chairman [[James Farley]], whom FDR rejected because he was [[Roman Catholic]], and Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

Administrative Assistants to Roosevelt included [[James Forrestal]], [[Lauchlin Currie]] and [[David K. Niles]]. Their function was to get information and to condense and summarize it for Roosevelt's use. FDR soon moved Forrestal to the Navy department, where he took over the responsibilities of the incompetent secretary.

Public opinion on entering the war became polarized in very complicated ways. Conservatives divided into pro-war ("interventionist") and anti-war ("isolationist") blocs, as did liberals. Republicans split and Democrats split. FDR was the leader of the interventionist liberal Democrats, but he was opposed by old allies like [[John L. Lewis]] and [[Joe Kennedy]], and supported by old foes like [[Henry Stimson]].

In general the dispute was entirely focused on Europe. Virtually every group was hostile to Japan and supported a strong pro-[[Nationalist China]] policy, which FDR pushed vigorously. Tokyo was threatened: end its invasion of China or FDR would--and did at the urging of [[KGB]] agent [[Harry Dexter White]] working as an Undersecretary of the Treasury--cut off Japan's oil supplies. Japan responded to an ultimatum--written by Harry White--with a decision for war. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked (Dec. 7, 1941), all the prior divisions vanished overnight, and all groups supported the war effort. Later stories to the effect that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance were all false fabrications.

see [[American Homefront, World War II]]

===Relationship with Stalin===
[[Image:Josephstalin.jpg‎|thumb|325px|right|Roosevelt in 1941 formed an alliance of convenience with Stalin to defeat Hitler.]]

In August 1939 [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact|Stalin made an alliance with Hitler]] under which both jointly waged aggressive war against Poland; the two divided Poland between them, as Germany turned toward France and Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland. With Roosevelt strongly supporting France and Britain, the Communist Party USA at Moscow's direction began attacking Roosevelt in the wildest terms and did so for the next twenty-two months. In the 1940 election, pro-Moscow elements in the CIO forced [[John L. Lewis]] to turn against Roosevelt and support the liberal Republican [[Wendell Willkie]]. Roosevelt meanwhile moved right, and brought into top jobs the GOP vice presidential nominee from 1936, Frank Knox (a conservative who became Secretary of the Navy) and conservative Republican lawyer [[Henry Stimson]], who took over the War Department. Rejecting advice from its communist organizers, 90% of CIO members voted for Roosevelt, who was easily elected to a third term.

Roosevelt was determined to help Britain and at one point after Pearl Harbor [[Winston Churchill]] even moved into the White House to coordinate war strategy. Isolationists, led by the [[America First]] Committee and Senator [[Burton K. Wheeler]] tried to block the moves toward war.

Roosevelt in February 1940 sharply attacked the Soviet Union:
{{Cquote|In the early days of Communism, I recognized that many leaders in Russia were bringing education and better health and, above all, better opportunity to millions ... I disliked the regimentation ...I abhorred the indiscriminate killings of thousands of innocent victims ....
I heartily deprecated the banishment of religion - though I knew that some day Russia would return to religion for the simple reason that four or five thousand years of recorded history have proven that mankind has always believed in God in spite of many abortive attempts to exile God.

The Soviet Union, as everybody who has the courage to face the fact knows, is run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world. It has allied itself with another dictatorship [Germany], and it has invaded a neighbor [Finland] so infinitesimally small that it could do no conceivable possible harm to the Soviet Union, a neighbor which seeks only to live at peace as a democracy, and a liberal, forward-looking democracy at that.<ref>Quoted in Robert E. Sherwood, ''Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History'', (1948), [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Roosevelt_and_Hopkins-An_Intimate_History-Robert_E_Sherwood-1948-1034pgs-GOV-POL.sml.pdf&id=252&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 p. 138] pdf.</ref>}}
===World War II===
In June 1941 Germany invaded Russia, and Communists on Moscow's instructions immediately switched from anti-FDR isolationism to support for FDR and demands the US enter the war. The conservative isolationists were convinced that FDR was conniving to somehow trick the American people and enter the war. Public opinion steadily moved to support FDR's aggressive policies against Japan and Germany.
[[File:Warplan.jpg|thumb|400px|Wheeler leaks top secret US war plan three days before Pearl Harbor]]

In early December 1941 a military officer gave Senator Burton Wheeler, an isolationist liberal Democrat, a copy of the top secret American war plan for fighting Germany. Wheeler gave it to the ''Chicago Tribune'', which published the secrets in a desperate effort to weaken the American military so much that Roosevelt would avoid war. Pearl Harbor came a few days later and Wheeler and the isolationists went quiet.

The policy makers in Washington--including those at the newly constructed Pentagon--wanted to focus on defeating Germany. Public opinion (and the Navy) insisted on defeating Japan first. Given the military situation, there was little in 1942-43 the U.S. could do to open a ground front in Europe except send military supplies to Britain and Russia, which was done. The war in 1942-43 of necessity focused on Japan, and it was a very hard-fought war primarily with naval aviation. The great American victory at the [[Battle of Midway]] ended the Japanese blitzkrieg and evened out the forces. Japan was unprepared for a long war, and already by early 1942 the U.S. had far more warships and warplanes under construction than Japan did. Before the material edge became decisive, American forces defeated the Japanese at the [[Battle of Guadalcanal]]. By 1943 the "island hopping" campaign under Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]] in the central Pacific, and under General [[Douglas MacArthur]] in the Southwest Pacific was inexorably pushing American forces toward the Japanese home islands, with the goal of invading them and capturing Tokyo.

American and British troops invaded North Africa in 1942, and Sicily and Italy in 1943. In retrospect these were not major strategic goals, but they did provide the Army with the combat experience needed to prepare for the real invasion of France in June 1944. By then the German Luftwaffe had been destroyed by the U.S. Air Force, and the vast advantage in war material made the German military position hopeless. With the huge Russian armies pressing in from the east, and the smaller but more powerful Allied armies coming in from the west, the Nazi war machine was crushed in 1944-45.

FDR worked very closely with his military advisors, and followed their strategic advice. His stated policy was fostering diplomatic relations with Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Chinese Nationalists. Stalin publicly disbanded the [[Comintern]] in 1943 in return for [[lend-lease]] aid of food and munitions.<ref>
[http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol08/no08/stalin.htm ''Has Stalin Revived the Comintern?,''] from ''Fourth International'', September-October 1947, Vol.8 No.8, pp.231-233. Transcribed, edited & formatted by Ted Crawford & David Walters in 2008 for Encyclopedia of Trotskyism Online. Retrieved from marxist.org April 3 2010.</ref> A message from Moscow to all [[KGB]] stations relating to this event is one of the most important messages<ref>[http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00008.cfm Venona 142(a) Moscow to Canberra 12 September 1943]. Text reads: "change in circumstances - and in particular the dissolution of the [[Comintern]] - necessitates a change in the method used by the workers of our residencies to keep in touch with the leaders of the local [[Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secret_apparatus|Communist]] organizations on intelligence matters. 
2. Our workers, by continuing to meet the leader of the Communists, are exposing themselves to danger and are giving cause [''orgs of''] local authorities to suspect that the Comintern is still in existence. 
3. We propose: 
a. That personal contact with leaders of the local Communist organizations should cease and that Communist material should not be accepted for forwarding to the Comintern. 
b. That meetings of our workers may take place only with special reliable undercover [ZAKONSPIRIROVANNYJ] contacts of the Communist [D% organizations], who are not suspected by the [''orgs of''] local authorities, exclusively about specific aspects of our intelligence work (acquiring [1 group unidentified] contacts, leads [NAVODKI], rechecking of those who are being cultivated, etc.). For each meeting it is necessary to obtain our consent. 

Representative of the Soviet Union. 

No. 4084 
Lt. Gen. [[P.M. Fitin]]. 

Notes: [a] This message is known to have been sent also to NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, and OTTAWA.</ref> in the entire corpus of [[VENONA]] translations. This message clearly discloses the KGB's connection to the Comintern and to the national Communist parties. <ref>''Counterintelligence Reader'', National Counterintelligence Center, United States, [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch4_a.htm Vol. 2, Ch. 4], n.d.</ref>

===China===
[[John P. Davies]] was assigned to Gen. [[Joseph Stilwell]] as Stilwell's adviser in China. Hopkins made a note at the time: "The President indicated his strong dissatisfaction with the way the whole show was running in China. He stated that Stillwell obviously hated the Chinese and that his cablegrams are sarcastic about the Chinese and this feeling is undoubtedly known to the Generalissimo."<ref>Roosevelt and Hopkin, Sherwood, pg. 739.</ref>Roosevelt and Hopkins biographer Robert Sherwood wrote that Gen. [[George C. Marshall]] told Hopkins his only serious disagreement with
Hopkins was on the issue of Stilwell. Sherwood adds that "he was unquestionably a serious nuisance to Roosevelt and there were many times when he was on the verge of recalling him."<ref> Roosevelt and Hopkin, Sherwood, pg. 740.</ref>

===Tax revolt in the Democratic party===

In February 1944 Congress rejected Roosevelt's demand for a $10,500,000,000 tax increase and cut it to $2,300,000,000. Roosevelt vetoed it saying this was a "bill not for relief of the needy but of the greedy." Senator [[Alben Barkley]], Democratic leader, rose on the floor of the Senate to say the veto was "a calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every member of Congress." The entire Senate united in a roar of applause. Barkley declared that after seven years of carrying the [[New Deal]] banner for Roosevelt, he would resign his post as Democratic majority leader and he called on the Congress to preserve its self respect and override the veto. The Senate overrode it 72 to 14 and the House 299 to 95.
[[Image:Fbisilvermasterfilevol15p4.JPG|right|250px|thumb|[[CPUSA]] defector [[Louis Budenz]] testified he could name 400 individuals involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret_apparatus|Communist conspiracy]]; <ref>[http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft296nb15t&chunk.id=d0e6193&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e4718&brand=eschol FBI Headquarters File 100-63, Louis Francis Budenz, Internal Security—C, Serial 122.]</ref> others testified there may have been over 1000.<ref>Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations ([http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm McCarthy Hearings 1953-54]).</ref> The [[Silvermaster group]] infiltrated 27 high level KGB operatives into government jobs in the Roosevelt administration<ref>So thorough was [[KGB]] penetration of the Roosevelt Administration, that when [[Army Signals Intelligence]] cryptographer [[Meredith Gardner]] extracted the names of [[Hans Bethe]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Enrico Fermi]], [[Harold Urey]], [[Edward Teller]] and 11 other scientists working on the [[Manhattan Project]] from a December 2, 1944 KGB encypherment, [http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00014.cfm Venona 1699 New York to Moscow, December 2, 1944]. KGB agent [[William Weisband]] watched him do it. ''VENONA: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957'', Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, eds., (Washington, D.C.: [[National Security Agency]], Central Intelligence Agency, 1996) [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/preface.htm]; The ''Baltimore Sun'' (Laura Sullivan, "SPY'S ROLE LINKED TO US FAILURE ON KOREA," 6/29/00) reported that a report newly declassified by the US National Security Agency (NSA) shows that William Weisband alerted the Soviets to extensive US eavesdropping in 1948, resulting in a complete blackout of information from the communist bloc for more than two years. This crippled the NSA's intelligence gathering efforts in the late 1940s and begins to explain why the US was caught unprepared for the [[DPRK]]'s 1950 invasion of the [[ROK]]. NSA historian David A. Hatch, who authored the report, said, "This report answers several significant questions. Up until now, there has been a great lack of knowledge surrounding some of these events ... and this should help sharpen [the public's] understanding." [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense's Early Bird news service for June 29, 2000.] [http://www.nautilus.org/archives/napsnet/dr/0006/JUN29.html#item8] </ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060820054409/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/2000/summer/re2-su0.htm ''The Venona Progeny''], Hayen B. Peake, Naval War College Review, Summer 2000, Vol. LIII, No. 3. "[[Venona]] makes absolutely clear that they had active agents in the U.S. State Department, Treasury Department, Justice Department, Senate committee staffs, the military services, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the [[Manhattan Project]], and the [[White House]], as well as wartime agencies. No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated." [[Hayden B. Peake]] is the curator of [[Central Intelligence Agency]]’s (CIA) Historical Intelligence Collection. [http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/P_folder/peake.html]</ref> that were still employed in the US government well after World War II ended.<ref>[http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster015.pdf FBI Silvermaster file Vol. 15, pg. 4 pdf.]</ref>
]]

== Fourth Term ==

Roosevelt had his closest election in 1944, with a subdued contest that was decided by turnout of FDR allies in the cities and labor unions, and increasingly among soldiers. [[Strom Thurmond]] also supported FDR's decision to seek a fourth term, and referred to Roosevelt as having been the world’s greatest leader. <ref>[http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html What Trent Meant], Kevin Baker.</ref>

===Yalta conference===

At the [[Yalta conference]] in February 1945, victory was in sight in Europe. A [[reparations]] commission was set up to help repay Russia from German assets. Everyone realized that the conquest of eastern Europe by the Red Army guaranteed Soviet dominance, but efforts were made to get promises of fair elections; the promises were made, but the elections were never held. Roosevelt, despite his failing health, seemed to think that he and Stalin would personally iron out any difficulties after the war ended. FDR persuaded Stalin to promise to enter the war against Japan 90 days after Germany surrendered; Stalin did so.

==Failure of "competitive administration" ==
Roosevelt used a "competitive administration" strategy to maximize presidential power at the cost of confusion, delay and inefficiency. He made sure in each policy area that several top officials had overlapping jurisdictions. They would feud and have to bring the problem to FDR, who wanted to make every final decision. For example, in the case of the [[PWA]] relief program, the competition over the size of expenditure, the selection of the administrator, and the appointment of staff at the state level, led to delays and to the ultimate weakness of PWA as a recovery instrument. [[Harold L. Ickes]] headed the PWA (as well as the Interior Department), and FDR set it up so that Ickes had to continuously fight other top administrators like [[Lewis Douglas]] (the budget director), [[Henry A. Wallace]] (Secretary of Agriculture) and [[Harry Hopkins]] (head of rival relief efforts). The rivalries were just as fierce for other top administrators, many of whom resigned in frustration and (like [[Hugh Johnson]] and [[Raymond Moley]]) even became enemies of Roosevelt.<ref> [[Dean Acheson]] and [[Lewis Douglas]] also resigned in anger but kept quiet, allowing FDR to bring them back during the war. The vocal ones were entered on an enemy's list and permanently barred from serving the nation.</ref>

Roosevelt kept up his divisive strategy during the war, causing enormous confusion and contradictions in economic mobilization. It got so bad that FDR had to publicly humiliate Vice President Wallace and relieve him of all responsibilities. The Navy found a solution, as Admiral [[Ernest King]] deliberately kept FDR in the dark. Even when his fleet was threatened by the Japanese at Midway in May 1942, and King urgently needed the help of the British Navy, he decided not to ask because the request for help would have to go through Roosevelt and King refused to allow the White House to learn what dire peril the nation faced. Lucky for King--very lucky--he won a terrific victory at Midway.

== Reflections on Christianity ==

FDR said this about the Bible in an address on October 6, 1935:

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

:"Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity."<ref>Quoted in DeMar, ''The Untold Story'', p. 60 and Gabrial Sivan, ''The Bible and Civilization'' (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1973), p. 178.</ref>

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

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

While running for his third time in a Brooklyn speech, Roosevelt said,

:"I am certain that the rank and file of patriotic Republicans do not realize the nature of this threat. They should remember, and we must remember, what the collaborative understanding between Communism and Nazism has done to the processes of democracy abroad...

:"Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization. They oppose democracy because it is Christian. They oppose Christianity because it preaches democracy. Their objective is to prevent democracy from becoming strong. <ref>''Roosevelt and Hopkins'', Sherwood, 1948, pgs. 193-194 (pgs. 211 - 212 pdf).</ref>

As [[World War II]] broke out in Europe, FDR warned:

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

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

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

"In his second inaugural address, FDR pledged to do his utmost by 'seeking Divine guidance.' He took that mission further on January 25, 1941, when he wrote a personal prologue to a special edition of the [[New Testament]], which was distributed to millions of U.S. soldiers. 'As Commander-in-Chief,' Roosevelt wrote, 'I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.' He believed that all American soldiers should have the opportunity to read the words of [[Christ]] in preparing for battle. Once, when joining those soldiers aboard a warship with Winston Churchill, FDR asked the crew and prime minister to join him in singing the hymn 'Onward Christian Soldiers.' In his final inaugural address, FDR affirmed, "So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly ... to achievement of His will.' "<ref>God and George W. Bush (New York: Regan Books, 2004), p. 176</ref>

When American soldiers were landing on the beaches of Normandy, Roosevelt led the nation in prayer during a radio broadcast. <ref>Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer], June 6, 1944.</ref>

==Legacy==
[[Image:Dcrosmor.jpg|right|thumb|330px|Statue of the president at [[The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial]] in Washington D.C.]]

Roosevelt is an admired but still hotly debated president. Many credit Roosevelt with helping the United States survive the Great Depression and with providing solid leadership during World War II. Others, especially conservatives, assert that he uselessly expanded the welfare state, abused executive powers, and badly botched diplomacy before and during World War II.

Roosevelt's image appears on the dime.

===Criticism===
It was essential that he do everything in his power to reestablish confidence in the economic system. What the nation needed was more jobs at machines, in ships, in mines and stores creating and distributing goods that were needed and providing wages and profits with which these goods could be purchased. If there are to be jobs for all they must be jobs producing something - goods and services. He began with a sweeping attack upon business and kept it up until the end of [[World War II]]. When Roosevelt came into power business was regarded as some gigantic criminal conspiracy against the welfare of the nation.

Business cannot function at full measure unless consumption is held within total output, and savings are produced. Those savings then must regularly flow into new investment. New investment means the flow of economic resources into establishing new industries and the expansion of old ones. It means encouraging construction trades, manufacturing, producing and installing new equipment and tools. It means allowing the creation of new private businesses. Instead FDR carried on ceaseless attacks and denouncements of business, warned people against it, subjected businesses to dozens of absurd, semi revolutionary schemes, coupled with deficit financing which ate up all the savings, inflation, utopian panaceas, constant preaching that profit was evil, investors parasites, and businessmen scoundrels and enemies of the people. <ref>''Roosevelt Myth'', Book 3, Ch. 4, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/cgi-bin/framed/2767/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Four___Toward_the_Precip.htm ''Toward the Precipice''], Flynn, 1948.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Eleanor Roosevelt]]
*[[Michael Whitney Straight]]
*[[Gertrude Pratt]]
*[[Joseph Lash]]
*[[New Ordeal]]

==Further reading==
see also [[New Deal Bibliography]] for a much more detailed guide

*Alter, Jonathan. ''The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope'' (2006), popular [http://www.amazon.com/Defining-Moment-FDRs-Hundred-Triumph/dp/B000Q6GY1W/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881373&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Beschloss, Michael R. ''The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1941-1945'' (2002). [http://www.amazon.com/Conquerors-Roosevelt-Destruction-Hitlers-1941-1945/dp/0743244540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881516&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Black, Conrad. ''Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom'' (2003). [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Delano-Roosevelt-Champion-Freedom/dp/1586482823/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881865&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], excellent detailed biography by a conservative writer
*Brands, H.W. ''Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt'' (2008)
* Brinkley, Alan. ''Franklin Delano Roosevelt'' (2009) 128pp
* Burns, James MacGregor. vol 1: ''Roosevelt" The Lion and the Fox'' (1956); [http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-1882-1940-James-MacGregor-Burns/dp/0156027623/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881949&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search vol 1]; vol. 2: ''Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom 1940-1945'' (1970), [http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-1940-1945-James-MacGregor-Burns/dp/0156027577/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881949&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; major interpretive scholarly biography, emphasis on politics; vol 2 is on war years and is [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945'' (2nd ed. 1995) scholarly survey of foreign policy [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Roosevelt-American-Foreign-1932-1945/dp/0195097327/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881549&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Freidel, Frank. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny'' (1990), One-volume scholarly biography; covers entire life [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-D-Roosevelt-Rendezvous-Destiny/dp/094570738X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881894&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search 2006 reprint edition]
* Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II'' (1995), joint biography by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/No-Ordinary-Time-Franklin-Roosevelt/dp/B000B86FI2/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193883493&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Graham, Otis L. and Meghan Robinson Wander, eds. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt: His Life and Times.'' (1985). encyclopedia by scholars
* Hamby, Alonzo L. ''For the Survival of Democracy: Franklin Roosevelt and the World Crisis of the 1930s'' (2004) major interpretation by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Democracy-Franklin-Roosevelt-Crisis/dp/0684843404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240397848&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jenkins, Roy. ''Franklin Delano Roosevelt'' (2003) short popular bio from British perspective
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945.'' (1999), wide-ranging survey of national affairs by scholar [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Larrabee, Eric. '' Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War''. History of how FDR handled the war [http://www.amazon.com/Commander-Chief-Roosevelt-Lieutenants-Bluejacket/dp/1591144558/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193883793&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Leuchtenberg, William E. Franklin D. ''Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940.'' (1963). Remains the standard scholarly interpretive history of era. [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-D-Roosevelt-New-Deal/dp/0061330256/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193883672&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Moley, Raymond. ''After Seven Years'' (1939), very important conservative memoir by ex-Brain Truster [http://www.questia.com/library/book/after-seven-years-by-raymond-moley.jsp online edition]
* Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., ''The Age of Roosevelt'', 3 vols, (1957-1960), the classic narrative history. Strongly supports FDR.
*Smith, Jean Edward. ''FDR'' (2007) 885pp; good recent biography[http://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/1400061210/ref=pd_ts_b_3?ie=UTF8&s=books excerpt and text search]

====notes====
<references/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Roosevelt, Franklin D.}}

==External links==
*[http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/ FDR cartoon archive], an especially useful source for understanding public opinion
*[http://www.nps.gov/hofr/ Hyde Park NY Home of FDR]
*[http://www.nps.gov/roca/ Campobello Island Summer Home of FDR]
*[http://www.fdr-littlewhitehouse.org/ Warm Springs GA FDR Retreat]
*[http://www.nps.gov/frde/ FDR Memorial Washington DC]
* [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/ The Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum]
** [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/audio.html Audio Archive]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data.php Academic Data Related to the Roosevelt Administration]

===Speeches and quotations: audio and transcripts===
* [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt famous quotes]
* [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu The American Presidency Project] at [[University of California at Santa Barbara]]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php Public Papers of the Presidents: Franklin D. Roosevelt]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php State of the Union Addresses]
*** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14683 1934], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14890 1935], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15095 1936], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15336 1937], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15517 1938], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15684 1939], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15856 1940], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16092 1941], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16253 1942], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16386 1943], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16518 1944]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php State of the Union Written Messages]
*** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16595 1945]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/inaugurals.php Inaugural Addresses]
*** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14473 1933], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15349 1937], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16022 1941], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16607 1945]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/fireside.php Fireside Chats]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php Presidential Elections]
*** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1932 1932], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1936 1936], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1940 1940], [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1944 1944]
** [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/medialist.php?presid=32 32 Audio/Video Clips of FDR]
* [http://www.whitehousetapes.org/pages/tapes_fdr.htm Roosevelt's Secret White House Recordings] via [[University of Virginia]]
* [http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-220 FDR - Day of Infamy video clip] (2 min.)
* [http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/showfindingaid.cfm?findaidid=RooseveltFD Audio clips of speeches]
* [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/froos1.htm First Inaugural Address], via [[Yale University]]
* [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/froos2.htm Second Inaugural Address], via [[Yale University]]
* [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/froos3.htm Third Inaugural Address], via [[Yale University]]
* [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/froos4.htm Fourth Inaugural Address], via [[Yale University]]
* [http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/ Court "Packing" Speech March 9, 1937]
* [http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1940.html University of Virginia graduating class speech ("Stab in the Back" speech) June 10, 1940]

===Other===
* [http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/fdroosevelt Short essays by scholars]
* [http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/index.html An archive of political cartoons from the FDR years; highly revealing and out of copyright]
* [http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-767&pid=s-53 Warm Springs and FDR's Polio Treatment]
* [http://www.davidpietrusza.com/FDR-links.html Franklin D. Roosevelt Links]

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Great Depression]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:World War I]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Broke with FDR]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Talk:Liberal whining

2011-07-26T22:04:07Z

StoryMaker: /* Should be more "definition" and less "list"? */ new section

It seems to me that some of your examples go beyond "whining" into the category of criminal behavior; I think maybe those need a new article. To characterize them as "whining" makes them sound less serious than they actually are. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:24, 18 February 2010 (EST)
:This is true. I'm assuming you're referring [[liberal vandalism]], correct? I guess a lot of the time the progressive liberals progress from [[liberal whining]] to [[liberal vandalism]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:01, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Should be more "definition" and less "list"? ==

I think it would be appropriate if this article spent more time defining liberal whining, the circumstances that facilitate it, and the nature of liberal whining, instead of being primarily a short list of examples of liberal whining. Of course, I do support the list being in there (or at least including examples of liberal whining) but I feel like it's not "article-y" enough this way, if that makes sense. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 18:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Global warming

2011-07-26T21:18:10Z

StoryMaker: /* Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims */ added a little punctuation

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, with blue indicating cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the in the East (right) are cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
'''Global warming''' is the now-discredited theory that the world is becoming dangerously warmer, and that government needs to assert more controls over energy production and use to try to stop it. Put another way, [[liberals]] concocted a theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to justify demands for a more powerful government. As temperatures have cooled in many areas, liberals have switched their theory to one of [[climate change]] and even [[global cooling]], which of course would occur naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref>

[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

Many political activists use the term '''"global warming"''' to refer the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no global crisis, despite dire warning by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling since 1995.<ref>http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist</ref>

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref>

The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref> The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed.

Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009). Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref>

In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and - trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Presence of CO2==

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. <ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.

==The Modern Warm Period==

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

== Sun Spots ==
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature." <ref>[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009</ref>

==Politicization of the Issue==

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

==Climate Change As A Cult==
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

==Climate "Science" Fraud==
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

==Liberal claims of "Consensus"==
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

==Past Speculation==

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming and Dissent==
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

==Al Gore's Claims==
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Related to above, while Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported,

:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==Reported effects of Climate Change==

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Killer cornflakes.<ref>Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Earth exploding<ref>[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.<ref>http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html</ref>

* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.<ref> Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

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

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Gun control

2011-07-25T22:25:09Z

StoryMaker: /* Gun control outside the USA */ added some periods, fixed spelling errors, etc.

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, even though guns are typically acquired for defensive or sporting purposes. Studies show that more gun ownership results in less crime, but [[liberals]] push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward. Accordingly, the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns somehow leads to less crime, even though guns are primarily defensive weapons.<ref>People who support gun control claim or pretend that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]
*[[Second Amendment]]
*[[Gun Control in Nazi Germany]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Affirmative Action

2011-07-24T23:51:46Z

StoryMaker: Saying that "all liberals" whine about racial profiling, while seemingly accurate, uses the extreme word "all" and is such probably not a strictly correct claim. I reworded.

'''Affirmative action''' means giving someone a preference or advantage based on the color of his skin, or gender, to reverse the effects of [[discrimination]] and often for political motivation. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of '''affirmative action'''. Though [[liberal]]s whine about how bad [[racial profiling]] is, they promote affirmative action, which is essentially the same thing as racial profiling.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done actively, by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some so-called minorities that are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students because students admitted through affirmative action programs are more likely to be unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Affirmative Action President]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

United Nations

2011-07-23T17:24:58Z

StoryMaker: /* Arab-Israel dispute */ added a period

[[Image:UN1.jpg|right|200px]]
The '''United Nations''' is a [[globalism|globalist]] organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including almost all the countries in the world. Non-members include [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]]. Switzerland finally joined in 2002.<ref> [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref> The United Nations typically supports [[liberal]], [[environmental]] and [[socialist]] ideals.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kincaid|first=Cliff|url=http://www.aim.org/aim-report/the-plan-for-socialist-world-government|title=The Plan For Socialist World Government|accessdate=2010-02-06|publisher=Accuracy in Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations|title=United Nations|accessdate=2010-02-06|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.middletownca.com/LIBERAL-EQUALS-SOCIALIST.htm|title=Liberal equals socialist equals communitarian equals fabian society equals Agenda 21|accessdate=2010-02-06|publisher=middletownca.com}}</ref>

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan, but the actual UN was created in 1945. It was designed by the U.S. State Department. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", Britain, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism.

US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said at the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest."

American enthusiasm for the UN soured after the [[Soviet Union]] vetoed most resolutions of the Security Council. However the Soviets boycotted the UN in 1950, allowing the UN to officially sponsor the [[Korean War]]. In practice, the U.S. made all the decisions for the UN regarding that war. When the Soviets returned in 1951, soo too did stalemate, and the UN played a minor role in the [[Cold War]].

The western military alliance of [[NATO]] began in 1949 and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did. The one exception was the [[Korean War]], which was fought under UN auspices since the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN in 1950.
===Third World issues===
In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

By the 1960s, the [[General Assembly]], although powerless, became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

===China===

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international peace and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.
===International Court of Justice===
The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.
===Other Sections===
The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the [[General Assembly]] for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]

The U.N. has been accused of hypocritical conduct and double standards. The U.N. condemns Israel for its conduct toward the Palestinians, yet it refuses to condemn China for its conduct toward the Tibetans. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C0058CAB-F932-4EB8-B2C1-2C8CABB01F53 The U.N.'s Hypocrisy in Tibet], [[Joseph Klein]], ''[[Front Page Magazine]]'', March 28, 2008</ref>

The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. <ref> IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689 U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet], retrieved 30 March 2008.</ref>

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Promoting Abortion===
The Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) pushes countries to promote [[abortion]].
<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/int620.html United Nations Committee Pushes Countries to Promote Abortion in CEDAW Mtg], [[Samantha Singson]], ''[[Life News]]'', February 15, 2008</ref>

===Arab-Israel dispute===
[[File:Bnai-brith.jpg|thumb|300px|''B'nai B'rith'' magazine gives a Jewish view of the UN, [http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=25994 winter 2009 online]]] A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. Increasingly the General Assembly became a forum for Arab attacks on [[Israel]].

The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

===Defending Islam===
The United Nations Secretary General [[Ban Ki-moon]] condemned [[Geert Wilders]]'s controversial film "[[Fitna]]", while stating "freedom of expression is not at stake here." <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2844232220080328?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true U.N.'s Ban condemns Dutch film as anti-Islamic], ''[[Reuters]]'', March 28, 2008.</ref>

The U.N.'s Human Rights Council passed a resolution that directs the body’s expert on free speech to report on “individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.” <ref>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F00A83C1-8D4A-4A7B-9545-9A63091D8294 The United Nations: Islam’s Gestapo], [[Stephen Brown]], ''[[Front Page Magazine]]'', April 11, 2008</ref> This suppression of free speech at an organization purporting to fairly represent the world's nations in a common forum is one of numerous actions in the past decade that has undermined U.N. [[credibility]].

===Contemporary US Criticism===
Some American critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the [[Sovereignty]] of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of [[One-world government|world government]]. Some claim that President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions. Some commentators now feel that it has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref>

== U.N. Commissions==
Hypocrisy, liberalism and Islam have rendered the United Nations reputation as useless. The following programs expose the U.N.'s incompetence by placing unworthy member states in positions of importance; <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/04/hypocrisy-display/ U.N. Hypocrisy On Full Display, Fox News, March 4, 2011]</ref>

===U.N. Human Rights Council===
Mission: "…responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all….” 
Members: Saudi Arabia, China, Vice-Presidents: Cuba, Angola. Libya was kicked off in February.

===U.N. Commission on the Status of Women===
Mission: “…set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide." 
Members: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran

===U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice===
Mission: “…set…out global strategy to prevent crime and promote stable criminal justice systems...and improving the efficiency and fairness of criminal justice administration systems." 
Members: Libya, Russia, Sudan, Iran, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan

===U.N. Women===
Mission: “…support, address and contribute to gender equality and the empowerment and the advancement of women…” 
Members: Executive Board: Libya, Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, China

===U.N. Economic and Social Council===
Mission: “…responsible for: promoting higher standards of living, full employment, and economic and social progress…encouraging universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…" 
Members: Saudi Arabia

===U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development===
Mission: "...to promote dialogue and build partnerships for sustainable development with major groups include[ing] women, youth, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, workers and trade unions, business and industry, the scientific community, and farmers…" 
Members: Angola, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia

===U.N. Commission on Social Development===
Mission: “….promoting full employment and decent work for all...Improving public sector effectiveness....National and international cooperation for social development..." 
Members: Cuba, Egypt, Zimbabwe

===U.N. Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations===
Mission: “…The consideration of applications for consultative status [with the UN]…submitted by NGOs…” 
Members: Sudan, Cuba, Pakistan, China

===U.N. Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)===
Mission: “…promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all…security of tenure and equal access to economic resources for all, with a specific focus on gender equality.” 
Members: Governing Council: Iran

===U.N. Committee on Information===
Mission: “To promote the establishment of a new, more just and more effective world information and communication order…based on the free circulation and wider and better-balanced dissemination of information…” 
Members: China, Libya, Kazakhstan, Iran

===U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF)===
Mission: “….advocate for the protection of children's rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential…” 
Members: Executive Board: Sudan, China

===U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees===
Mission: “…safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees.” 
Members: Executive Committee: Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan

===U.N. World Food Programme===
Mission: “advocate policies, strategies and operations that directly benefit the poor and hungry." 
Members: Executive Board: Sudan

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==Notable roles of U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N.==
* 1981-1985, Jeane Kirkpatrick - Denunciated the Soviet Union for the Sept. 1, 1983 shootdown of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] in international airspace just west of [[Sakhalin]] Island.

==Further reading==
* Pubantz, Jerry, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the United Nations'' (2nd ed. 2008), useful basic guide to all activities
* Weiss, Thomas G., and Sam Daws, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations'' (2009), 848pp; articles by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-United-Nations-Handbooks/dp/0199560102/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Weiss, Thomas G. ''The United Nations and Changing World Politics'' (6th ed. 2009), 504pp; solid college textbook [http://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Changing-World-Politics/dp/0813344352/ref=pd_sim_b_3cerpt and text search]
==External links==

*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/United Nations|Articles about the '''United Nations''' from previous "In the news" ]]

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.
*[http://www.rescue007.org/ International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors]

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/united-nations/ What Liberals Say - Category: United Nations], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[category:Human Rights]]

==See Also==
*[[Jeane Kirkpatrick]]

==References==
<references/>

Political cards

2011-07-22T17:11:38Z

StoryMaker: changed homophobia slightly

'''Political cards''' are tactics used by [[liberals]] in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of [[bridge]], where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards. Indeed, there are 52 political cards, just as in a deck of cards for bridge.

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more than playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a [[political card]] against the [[Tea Party Movement]], due to its amorphous nature.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Political card
!Meaning
!Example
!Advantage
!Disadvantage
|-
|sexist card
|allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting block within the Democratic party.
|[[Lawrence Summers]] was driven from his presidency of [[Harvard]] for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men.
|safe haven for angry liberals and [[feminists]]
|implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government
|-
|[[race card]]
|Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist
|Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008
|prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
|the boy who cried wolf.
|-
| Mediscare card
| Scare grandpa and grandma into thinking their government benefits will be cut off
| Used in a recent special congressional election for a [[Democrat]] in a [[Republican]]-leaning district in [[New York]] in 2011.
| fear sells
| people aren't stupid.
|-
|Third rail card
|Proposals to reform [[Social Security]] result in political suicide.
|Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.<ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail</ref>
|Slander your opponent for proposing solutions.
|Political and economic stagnation.
|-
|hate speech card
|Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance.
|The [[Obama administration]] has used the [[FCC]] to harass and intimidate what it considers its media critics. <ref>http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print#</ref>
|programmed response for liberal failures.
|mimics liberal talking points
|-
|[[Xenophobia]] card
|Bringing country of origin into a debate by suggesting that criticism is motivated by a fear of foreigners (eg. Australians)
|
|At first seems to be an effective way to pose the opponent as racist.
|Ultimately fails when both debaters are of the same country or when the person making the original claim is from the country of the claim.
|-
|anti-gay card
|Calling opponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality.
|Used against [[Rick Santorum]] leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006
|assumes the posture of [[civil rights]] advocacy.
|African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8</ref>
|-
|intolerant card
|demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology.
|the most despicable forms of liberal intolerance traditionally have been reserved for, and manifested in, the vile abuses heaped upon Black conservatives, Black Republicans, and Black Tea Party activists.
|in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant
|boomerang
|-
|"Responsible" Republican card
|Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly [[RINO]]s, are "responsible."
|"During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/</ref>
|Who killed Responsible Republicans? [[Bill Kristol]], of course. <ref>Ibid.</ref>
|In 1990 President [[George H.W. Bush]] was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge.
|-
|extreme card
|in typical [[MSM]] [[newspeak]], anything right of center or not liberal.
|Bill and [[Hillary Clinton]] persistently referred to the Republican [[Newt Gingrich|Contract with America]] as extreme; [[President Clinton]] ultimately signed 7 of 10 Contract items in to law.
|Prior to the [[9/11 attacks]], was used interchangeably with "[[terrorist]]" by mainstream media sources.
|Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2004/pdf/liberal_media.pdf The Liberal Media, ''Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It''], Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.</ref>
|-
|greedy card
|Portraying [[capitalist]]ic ideas or actions as greedy
|Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue.
|Most people care about money and fairness.
|Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans)
|-
|millionaires and billionaires card
|[[class warfare]]
|[[President Obama]] said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." <ref>The ''[[Washington Post]]'' Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html it is essentially meaningless]. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."</ref>
|appeals to voters motivated by [[envy]]
|politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires.
|-
|conspiracy theory card
|the one making the charge cannot explain facts.
|Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
|provides plausible reasons for the simple minded.
|contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories.
|-
|[[homophobia]] card
|Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of [[homosexuals]].
|Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's [[Proposition 8]] was deemed homophobia.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html</ref>
|Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks.
|Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay.
|-
| trickle down card
| anti-free market agitprop
| [[Nobel Laureate]] [[Paul Krugman]] claims GOP zombies will eat Obama's brain for extending the Bush tax cuts. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/20/paul-krugman-says-gop-zombies-are-going-eat-obamas-brain Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain], ''Newsbusters.</ref>
| apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists.
| Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html</ref>
|-
|global warming denier card
|opposition to using [[junk science]] to promote political [[activism]].
|[[Global warming]] activists have likened climate change to Nazi atrocities. <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html</ref>
|equates moderates with ignorant fascists.
|belittles and denigrates victims of the [[Nazi]] [[holocaust]].<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html</ref>
|-
| anti-environment card
| A claim that tries to portray the opponent badly by placing them as someone who "hates the environment".
| "The GOP wants babies to be fed poison from the environment" <ref>http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/new-tv-ad-for-epa-republicans-poison-babies/</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSTnoeNNbzQ Watch the Video]
| The simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage.
| purview of extremists
|-
| over-sensitive card
| failure to behave in a realistic manner and being afraid to upset people
|
|
|
|-
|uneducated card
|Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president.
|Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and [[liberals]] destroyed him by playing this card.
|A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot.
|Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states.
|-
|fundamentalist card
|seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism.
|[[Richard Dawkins]] screed, ''[[The God Delusion]]''.
|puts [[Billy Graham]] and [[bin Laden]] in the same boat.
|A majority of Americans are neither atheist nor [[secular humanist]]s.
|-
|[[Dominionist]] card
|implies [[evangelical]] [[Christian]]s want to impose an [[Iran]]ian style [[theocracy]] on the United States.
|Used by [[misogynist]]s to attack [[Michelle Bachmann]]. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/KeepLeft/michele-bachmann-john-quincy-adams_n_885868_94606213.html]
|appeals to the fears of [[atheist]]s and religious bigots.
|based on social [[pseudoscience]], [[propaganda]], and journalistic hacks.
|-
|free speech card
|cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech
| [[Supreme Court]] ruled exotic dancing protected free expression but disallowed a high school football team's pregame prayer under the same grounds.
|Legally it is technically correct
|Just because something is "free speech" does not mean it is not wrong
|-
| creationist card
|
|
|
|
|-
| birther card
| claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks
| ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal'' <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/truthers-vs-birthers-not-all-conspiracy-theories-are-created-equal/?singlepage=true ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal; Birthers aren't remotely as crazy — and dangerous — as Truthers'']. September 23, 2009 by Arthur Chrenkoff. Pajama's Media.</ref>
| hides the question of [[natural born citizen]]
| exposes the original meaning of [[natural born citizen]].
|-
| abortion card
| a defense of feminism
| Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] implied that Justice Bork would turn back Roe V. Wade forcing women to have back-alley abortions.
| fear Republican laws and personal responsibility
| you can't run from your conscience and consequence of actions can lead to a lifetime of suffering
|-
| liberal mocking card
| mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues
| ''The Daily Show''
| often pleases supporters
| makes person look petty
|-
|snark card
|Using snarky (sometimes even offensive) humor to attack the opponent.
|Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc.
|Often a [[laugh track|cue]] for other liberals to "join in" the laughter
|Nobody else is laughing (or they are laughing at the snark attempt-er).
|-
|Jesus card
|Claiming "What would Jesus do" to try to paint the opponent as not a true Christian (a common liberal tactic when cornered on a religious issue, such as [[homosexuality]])
|As noted above, liberals often use this to defend homosexuality <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/what-would-jesus-do-if-in_b_480013.html</ref> by claiming that Jesus never specifically mentioned it.
|Certain Bible passages can easily be [[quote mine]]d.
|A true Christian can easily find the flaws in such an argument by pointing our how it is taken out of context.
|-
|gun nut card
|slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons
|
|
|angers those with guns
|-
|[[Liberal redefinition]] card
| changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes
|
|
|
|-
| misuse of statistics card
| Liberals often use certain "trends" to support their claims.
| Citing the Clinton surplus vs the Bush deficit
| At first makes the user look like they have done their research
| Often taken out of context (for example the Clinton surplus was largely due to a Republican congress and the end of the Cold War, while the Bush deficit was caused greatly by two wars and need for Homeland Security.
|-
| cherry picking data card
| selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't
|
|
| dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples
|-
| never-admit-a-mistake card <ref>[[Thomas Sowell]] writes, (a) goals are redefined after the fact to give the public the illusion of success; (b) bad motives are ascribed to the opposition or society in general; (c) good intentions of the anointed are highlighted; and (d) they attack the accuracy of the data showing failure. Thomas Sowell, [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2002/12/vision-of-anointed-by-thomas-sowell.html ''The Vision of the Anointed]'', Chap. 2.</ref>
| inability to admit a mistake; lack of [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindness]]
| Obama said his [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|stimulus]] would hold unemployment below 8%; instead it rose to over 9% and straddled the U.S. with the [[debt ceiling]] crisis. <ref>http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/07/20/opinion/only-hope-is-undoing-obamas-mess.html Only Hope Is Undoing Obama’s Mess], Kenneth Brown And Micha Gisser, ''Albuquerque Journal'', July 20 2011.</ref>
| the quick fix
| incrementalism leads to compromise
|-
| denying [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] card
|
|
|
|
|-
| [[Anti-Americanism|Anti-American]] card
| Denying [[ American exceptionalism|American exceptionalism]]. Trouts out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Deceit|deceit]] card
| Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Poe's law|Poe's]] card
| Impersonation of [[Conservatives]] to discredit their positions.Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation.
|
|
|
|-
| Elite card
| claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful
|
|
|
|-
| Compassion card
| arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion
|
|
|
|-
| Hypocrite card
| claiming some inconsistency in positions
| The idea that a pro-lifer must oppose death penalty
| Some people actually buy it.
| Often the people making the Hypocrite claim exhibit hypocrisy themselves (see [[Liberal hypocrisy]])
|-
| Guilt by association card
| insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist
| "shaking hands with [[Saddam Hussein]]." <ref>[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=shaking+hands+with+Saddam+Hussein&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS425US426 Google Search Results].</ref>
| slander at will
| look who's calling the kettle back.
|-
| Google bomb card
| sabotaging Google searches
| [[Rick Santorum]]
|
|
|-
|working families card
|class warfare
|See Democratic Talking Points, [[2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Democratic_National_Convention|2008 Presidential Nominating Convention]], from the ''[[New York Times]]''. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/democrats-talking-points-on-the-convention/]
|Postures [[Democrat]]s as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children.
|Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families.
|-
| nativist card
| the idea people born in a given country are xenophobic exclusionary bigots.
| Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
| divides the people against themselves
| hard to prove in a [[melting pot]]
|-
|[[Godwin's Law|Godwin]] card
|invoking the name of Hitler.
|Liberal [[George_Soros#2004_Presidential_Elections_in_the_United_States|George Soros]] likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime.
|appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists.
|typical [[totalitarian]] tactic.
|-
|Patriot card
|Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist.
| "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm</ref>
|Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control.
|Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic.
|-
|Immigration card
|implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area.
|The promised [[DREAM Act|Obama Dream Act]], a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41.
|Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win.
|Most immigrants come to America seeking conservative values, such as a [[right to work]], lower taxes, being free of big government oppression, etc.
|-
|Nixon's Southern Strategy card
|implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].
| "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8123561/nixons_southern_strategy.html Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community], Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.</ref>
|labels Southerners as racist.
|ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, [[George Wallace]] received 49 [[electoral votes]] exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.<ref>Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml]</ref>
|-
|neo-confederate card
|implies [[Civil War]] buffs want to bring back [[segregation]] and [[slavery]].
|On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, [[MSNBC]]'s liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the [[Confederacy]], [[secession]], [[slavery]] and racism.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html</ref>
|intimidating to conservative Bluedog Democrats.
|may backfire and evoke [[bipartisanship]].
|-
|redneck card
|implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist
|most often applied to [[Ron Paul]] supporters
|pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, [[Red State]] dwellers, and others in flyover country.
|When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority.
|-
| bitter and cling to guns or religion card
| Why don't common people vote Democrat?
| Used by Obama and [[Howard Dean]].
| Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them.
| Insulting to average voters.
|-
|[[NASCAR]] card
|insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist
|NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican,<ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican</ref> more so than fans of most others sports.
|Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the [[Pentagon]]'s sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html</ref>
|NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans.
|-
| insensitive card
| failure to behave in a [[politically correct]] manner.
| a former Miss California was stripped of her crown for saying she thought marriage was between a man and a woman. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/04/20/carrie-prejean-says-answer-gay-marriage-question-cost-miss-usa-crown/</ref>
| ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority.
| not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal [[tripe]].
|-
|[[McCarthyism]] card
|accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of [[Joseph McCarthy]]
|''"Racist!" as an Epithet of Repression'' <ref>[http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/racist/ ''“Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression''], Dr. Paul Trout, Montana Professor Journal, Fall 1995.</ref>
|baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun.
|Requires no morals or conscience.
|}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:political cards]]

User talk:StoryMaker

2011-07-22T16:58:49Z

StoryMaker: /* Good points in the debate pages */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Good points in the debate pages ==

I read your posts and you give some interesting analysis. And I agree with you on the social v. economic conservative thing. Fiscal responsibility is important, but the moral fabric is even more so. Did you know that 1/4 of Americans binge drink? And of course TV has a lot of rubbish. Maybe I will save it and post it on the page. Anyway, welcome again to Conservapedia!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:43, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! I appreciate the encouragement! I would be happy for you to do that. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 12:58, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?

2011-07-22T00:35:37Z

StoryMaker:

This came up in the talk page over conservative novels.
I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
:Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the [[Great Depression]] proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. [[User:AlanR|AlanR]] 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)

One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011

:I would say social conservatism. In my opinion, the moral decay of America is worse than the economic decay, and may even contribute to the economic decay. After all, if people mess up their lives, they're more likely to need government help, which results in more entitlement programs, which results in more taxes and more spending, bla bla bla...get my drift? Irresponsible citizens mean irresponsible government, which means the society decays at a whole. Of course, it's not like the government can make anybody moral; the best it can do is provide good laws, stand back, and wait for God to work. ;)

:As for you, AlanR, I understand where your argument of "social conservatism restricts freedom" comes from. After all, banning gay marriages and abortions results in less freedom than allowing them, right? But the thing is, banning gay marriages and abortions protects the sacred institution of marriage and the right to life of unborn children. It's a matter of protecting the rights to do what is considered good and honorable, while restricting the rights to do wrong things. The idea of social conservatism is to commend those who do right and to punish those who do wrong. Biblically speaking, it's in accordance with Romans 13.

:But of course, economic conservatism is also important. We need holders of elected offices who will be careful stewards of the American people's money. Still, for me, social is more important. The stopping of infanticide should be more important than the prevention of wasteful spending, for what is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul?

:(Sorry if I overused the Bible. Well, OK. I'm not actually sorry. Sue me.) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 20:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?

2011-07-22T00:35:18Z

StoryMaker:

This came up in the talk page over conservative novels.
I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
:Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the [[Great Depression]] proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. [[User:AlanR|AlanR]] 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)

One semi-related question: would you agree that it is easier to understand social issues than it is to understand economic issues? Therefore those with no opinion is higher for economic issues than for social issues, and hence it is 'more important' to be an economic conservative as it is less common. And a question on social conservatism (because I can't work out how to add debate topics, nor find a place which tells me how to): What is the typical conservative view of those who refuse to consider or think about moral questions (and hence have no opinion)? - JamesCA, 5th July 2011

:I would say social conservatism. In my opinion, the moral decay of America is worse than the economic decay, and may even contribute to the economic decay. After all, if people mess up their lives, they're more likely to need government help, which results in more entitlement programs, which results in more taxes and more spending, bla bla bla...get my drift? Irresponsible citizens mean irresponsible government, which means the society decays at a whole. Of course, it's not like the government can make anybody moral; the best it can do is provide good laws, stand back, and wait for God to work. ;)

:As for you, AlanR, I understand where your argument of "social conservatism restricts freedom" comes from. After all, banning gay marriages and abortions results in less freedom than allowing them, right? But the thing is, banning gay marriages and abortions protects the sacred institution of marriage and the right to life of unborn children. It's a matter of protecting the rights to do what is considered good and honorable, while restricting the rights to do wrong things. The idea of social conservatism is to commend those who do right and to punish those who do wrong. Biblically speaking, it's in accordance with Romans 13.

:But of course, economic conservatism is also important. We need holders of elected offices who will be careful stewards of the American people's money. Still, for me, social is more important. The stopping of infanticide should be more important than the prevention of wasteful spending, for what is it if a man gains the whole world but loses his soul?

(Sorry if I overused the Bible. Well, OK. I'm not actually sorry. Sue me.) --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 20:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?

2011-07-22T00:04:46Z

StoryMaker:

Muslims regularly state that Allah is the same being as the Judeo-Christian God. This is at least partly to make proselytizing easier. How should Christians deal with these claims?--[[User:Boreas|Boreas]] [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']] 16:55, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Allah ''is'' the same as the Judeo-Christian God. The word 'Allah' means God in Arabic. However, the difference between Muslims and Jews and Christians is that they follow the Qu'ran as the true word of God. There is a difference in the central text of the religions, not God himself. [[User:EvelynJ|EvelynJ]]
:It's a different interpretation of the god of Abraham. so es they are following the same god, but with a different interpretation then Christians do (the Islamic version is much more closer to the Jewish one in a number of aspects)--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 08:43, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, if you ask me, it's kind of a moot point whether or not Allah is the same thing as the Christian God, because Christians consider Islam's teachings to be false anyway...so really, whether or not Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are the same thing is sorta an unanswerable question, because the entire belief system revolving around Allah is false...eh it's confusing. But do you get my point? --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 20:04, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Feminist Bible

2011-07-21T23:52:33Z

StoryMaker: slightly changed opening sentence

The '''Feminist Bible''' refers to any [[Bible]] translation that kowtows to aspects of [[feminist]] ideology, such as the acceptance of [[abortion]]. These translations distort the meaning of the Bible.

The often-promoted [[NIV]] (1984 edition) is an example of a Feminist Bible. The NIV uses the word "womb" -- a word often associated with the unborn child -- only 57 times, compared with 70 times by the [[NASB]] and 82 times by the [[ESV]], which is a modern translation widely respected for its accuracy. The problem of feminism has worsened in the new edition of the NIV, the 2010 version, which goes as far to use gender-neutral pronouns where masculine pronouns would be more appropriate. Here are numerous examples of how the NIV (both the 1984 and 2010 editions) systematically purges references to the unborn child:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
![[KJV]]
![[NASB]]
![[NIV]] (1984)
!NIV (2010)<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ New NIV passage lookup here]</ref>
|-
|Ruth 1:11
|"... are there yet any more '''''sons in my womb''''', that they may be your husbands?"
|"... Have I yet '''''sons in my womb''''', that they may be your husbands?"
|"... Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands?"
|"... Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands?"
|-
|Matthew 1:18
|"... she was found '''''with child''''' of the Holy Ghost."
|"... she was found to be '''''with child''''' by the Holy Spirit."
|"... she was found to be '''''with child''''' through the Holy Spirit."
|"... she was found to be '''''pregnant''''' through the Holy Spirit."
|-
|Luke 1:15
|"... shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, '''''even from his mother's womb'''''."
|"... and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''while yet in his mother's womb'''''."
|"... He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''even from birth'''''."
|"... He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''even before he is born'''''."<ref>Among these nine key [[abortion]]-related verses, this is the only one where the "new" (2010) NIV differs from the old (1984) NIV, raising questions about how much of the new NIV is really new.</ref>
|-
|Luke 1:42
|"And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
|"And she cried out with a loud voice and said, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"
|"In a loud voice she exclaimed: 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
|"In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
|-
|Luke 2:5
|"To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
|"in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child."
|"He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged<ref name="Pledged">See the discussion about [[marriage]] below.</ref> to be married to him and was expecting a child."
|"He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged<ref name="Pledged"/> to be married to him and was expecting a child."
|-
|Luke 11:27
|"... Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."
|"... 'Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.'"
|"... 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.'"
|"... 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.'"
|-
|Jeremiah 1:5
|"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart ...."
|-
|Jeremiah 31:8
|"... woman with child ..."
|"... Among them the blind and the lame, The woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together ...."
|"... Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor ...."
|"... Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor ...."
|-
|Romans 9:10-11
|"... but when Rebecca also had '''''conceived''''' by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the '''''children being not yet born''''', neither having done any good or evil ...."
|"... when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad ..."
|"... Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad ...."
|"... Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad ...."
|-
|Psalm 78:6
|"That the generation to come might know them, even the '''''children which should be born''''' ..."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the '''''children yet to be born''''' ..."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the '''''children yet to be born''''' ..."
|-
|}

Other examples of feminist distortions in the NIV include the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
![[KJV]]
![[NASB]]
![[NIV]] (1984)
!NIV (2010)
|-
|1 John 3:1
|Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God ....
|See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God ....
|How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! ....
|See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! ....
|-
|Luke 5:20
|And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man [ἄνθρωπος, which is the masculine form: man], thy sins are forgiven thee.
|Seeing their faith, He said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven you."
|When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
|When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
|-
|}

Revisions to the NIV further promote feminist distortions.<ref>[http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/nivfembible.htm The Feminist NIV]</ref> The translating committee for the new version of the [[NIV]] lacks any self-described "complementarians" who support the differences between men and women, for example.<ref>"Moo declined to label any of the committee members as "complementarians' ...."[http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4357&Itemid=53 New NIV translation due out in 2011]</ref>

Feminists also object to 1 Tim 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."), but the original Greek is so clear that not much can be done to distort it. Only the most most liberal translations, as in injecting plural forms of "woman" and "man", and also twisting the second half to read "listen quietly."

== Marriage ==

Feminists are often critical of traditional marriage, and the NIV translation uses the potentially demeaning term to "pledged" rather than "engaged" to describe planned marriages in the Bible. (The term "pledged" connotes a thing or a slave rather than a dignified person.) The NIV says, for example, that Mary was "pledged to be married" rather than "engaged to be married."<ref>See Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:27 and 2:5.</ref>

There are about ten references to the NIV (1984) to "pledged" to be married rather than "engaged" to be married. The 2010 translation to the NIV then added yet another use of "pledged", 1 Corinthians 7:27: "Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife." The more respected [[NASB]] translation of that same passage is: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

== Other Examples ==

Grammatical errors creep into Feminist Bibles due to a reluctance to use the male pronoun, such that the plural, gender-neutral pronoun is used even when referring to only one person. For example, most English translations translate James 2:15-16: "If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to ''them'' ...."<ref>Surprisingly, virtually all English translations from the [[KJV]] to today have this grammatical error. The quoted translation is from the [[New American Bible]].</ref> The pronoun "them" is grammatically incorrect in this case but is intended to avoid using a gender-specific pronoun. The [[New Century Version]] translates that in a grammatically correct (but still awkward style) as "A brother or sister in Christ might need clothes or food. If you say to ''that person'' ...."

Examples of translations that have feminist tendencies are the [[NIV]], the [[New King James Version]], the [[Today's New International Version]], the [[New American Bible]] and, to a lesser extent, the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

For example, in Mark 9:36 Jesus makes reference to a child and a pronoun is then appropriate for referring to the child. The [[New American Bible]] refers to the child as an "it" in order to appease feminism:<ref>Mark 9:36 (NAB) (emphasis added).</ref>

:Taking a child he placed ''it'' in their midst, and putting his arms around ''it'', he said to them ...."

Today's New International Version makes an awkward double reference to "child" to avoid using the masculine pronoun.

Even the [[KJV]] sometimes slips into inappropriate gender-neutral language, as in Romans 8:17 when it translates a form of "τέκνον" as "children" rather than its proper meaning as "sons", which fits the usage in that passage with respect to glorification as Christ was.

In addition to the above, words that are disfavored by feminists and are targets for censorship or distortion by a Feminist Bible:

*girl
*unborn
*manly
*ma'am, madam, and sir
*"women" in connection with "men", as in "men and women"
*masculine forms of titles or offices, as in "prophet" or "congressman", when the person is female
*masculine descriptions of types of persons, as in "layman" (Lv 22:12) or "salesman"
*"dear lady" (2 John 1:5 - the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and [[New King James Version]] drop the "dear", and [[The Message]] drops "lady" too)
*virgin
*the use of the exclusively feminine pronoun to refer to nations, boats, hurricanes, etc.
*the use of the exclusively masculine pronoun to refer to a person of unknown gender
*Mark 5:3 ("no one" preferred by feminists to "no man," despite the obviously male context of the verse)
*submit (used in various forms 23 times in the Bible, most often in reference to a wife's role and, unlike Islam, almost never in reference to submission to God)
*"common man" (which can be used effectively often, as in Luke 10:21<ref>The [[New Century Version]], a [[feminist]] rendition, uses the gender neutral "little children"; the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] uses the gender neutral "infants".</ref>)
*adultery
*words that highlight female personalities related to the attraction of men, or unflattering about women, such as "temptress".
*gentlemanly
*chivalry

(add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender differences]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Benedict Arnold

2011-07-21T23:43:50Z

StoryMaker: corrected a capitalization error; added a period

[[Image:Arnold t.jpg|right|thumb|Benedict Arnold]]

'''Benedict Arnold'''(1741-1801) was a general in the [[Continental Army]] during the [[Revolutionary War]]. He is famous for being an American traitor.

Early on, Arnold served his country honorably, Leading the [[Capture of Fort Ticonderoga]], [[Invasion of Canada]], and the [[Battle of Saratoga]], among others. In 1780, Arnold attempted to give control of the Fort at [[West Point]], which he commanded, to the [[British]]. His plans were revealed when his British contact [[Major André]] was caught with incriminating papers. André was executed but Arnold escaped. He saw limited action serving the British in the remainder of the war, and eventually was called back to [[England]]. He returned to [[Canada]] and then went back to [[London]] where he died, hated by his betrayed country, the country that he switched sides to and with little left to his name.

"Benedict Arnold" has become a synonym for traitor in American English.

==Sources==
[http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.html US History.org]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Arnold, Benedict}}

[[category:American Revolutionary War Commanders]]

The Message

2011-07-21T19:19:07Z

StoryMaker: added (or more accurately, a paraphrase) to better display The Message, and added quote about James 4:7; reworded some things

[[Category:Bible]][[Category:Bible Versions]][[Category:Christianity]]''The Message'' is a modern translation (or more accurately, a paraphrase) of the Holy Bible created by Pastor Eugene Peterson. The purpose of the translation was to capture what Peterson calls the "vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek." Seeking to translate the Bible in a way that would read to English speakers as it would have read to Greek speakers, he wrote much of it in an informal fashion.<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65</ref>

For example, the famous line from Psalm 23 "The Lord is shepherd, there is nothing I shall want" is translated in ''The Message'' as "God, my shepherd! I don't need a thing."<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65</ref> Some passages have been changed substantially in order to appear more exciting, such as in James 4:7, where "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" becomes "Yell a loud "No" to the devil and watch him scamper."<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:7&version=MSG</ref>

Though sometimes a refreshing read, it is, on balance, a [[liberal]] rendition. On the positive side, it translates silent aftermath of the Apostles' argument about which of them was the greatest as "the silence was deafening." The Message is more [[conservative]] than the [[NIV]] with respect to describing the unborn child, as in Romans 9:10.<ref>See [[Disputed Bible Translations]].</ref> But an illustration of its liberal bias can be found in the all-important John 3:16: "... by believing in him anyone can have a whole and lasting life" (rather than "eternal life").

==References==

<references/>
{{Bible Versions}}

Feminist Bible

2011-07-21T19:05:25Z

StoryMaker: Added some info about the 2010 NIV

The '''Feminist Bible''' refers to translations of the [[Bible]] that kow-tow to [[feminist]] ideology, and promote acceptance of [[abortion]]. These translations distort the meaning of the Bible.

The often-promoted [[NIV]] (1984 edition) is an example of a Feminist Bible. The NIV uses the word "womb" -- a word often associated with the unborn child -- only 57 times, compared with 70 times by the [[NASB]] and 82 times by the [[ESV]], which is a modern translation widely respected for its accuracy. The problem of feminism has worsened in the new edition of the NIV, the 2010 version, which goes as far to use gender-neutral pronouns where masculine pronouns would be more appropriate. Here are numerous examples of how the NIV (both the 1984 and 2010 editions) systematically purges references to the unborn child:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
![[KJV]]
![[NASB]]
![[NIV]] (1984)
!NIV (2010)<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ New NIV passage lookup here]</ref>
|-
|Ruth 1:11
|"... are there yet any more '''''sons in my womb''''', that they may be your husbands?"
|"... Have I yet '''''sons in my womb''''', that they may be your husbands?"
|"... Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands?"
|"... Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands?"
|-
|Matthew 1:18
|"... she was found '''''with child''''' of the Holy Ghost."
|"... she was found to be '''''with child''''' by the Holy Spirit."
|"... she was found to be '''''with child''''' through the Holy Spirit."
|"... she was found to be '''''pregnant''''' through the Holy Spirit."
|-
|Luke 1:15
|"... shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, '''''even from his mother's womb'''''."
|"... and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''while yet in his mother's womb'''''."
|"... He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''even from birth'''''."
|"... He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit '''''even before he is born'''''."<ref>Among these nine key [[abortion]]-related verses, this is the only one where the "new" (2010) NIV differs from the old (1984) NIV, raising questions about how much of the new NIV is really new.</ref>
|-
|Luke 1:42
|"And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
|"And she cried out with a loud voice and said, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"
|"In a loud voice she exclaimed: 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
|"In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
|-
|Luke 2:5
|"To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
|"in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child."
|"He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged<ref name="Pledged">See the discussion about [[marriage]] below.</ref> to be married to him and was expecting a child."
|"He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged<ref name="Pledged"/> to be married to him and was expecting a child."
|-
|Luke 11:27
|"... Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."
|"... 'Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.'"
|"... 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.'"
|"... 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.'"
|-
|Jeremiah 1:5
|"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart ...."
|"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart ...."
|-
|Jeremiah 31:8
|"... woman with child ..."
|"... Among them the blind and the lame, The woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together ...."
|"... Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor ...."
|"... Among them will be the blind and the lame, expectant mothers and women in labor ...."
|-
|Romans 9:10-11
|"... but when Rebecca also had '''''conceived''''' by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the '''''children being not yet born''''', neither having done any good or evil ...."
|"... when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad ..."
|"... Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad ...."
|"... Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad ...."
|-
|Psalm 78:6
|"That the generation to come might know them, even the '''''children which should be born''''' ..."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the '''''children yet to be born''''' ..."
|"so the next generation would know them, even the '''''children yet to be born''''' ..."
|-
|}

Other examples of feminist distortions in the NIV include the following:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
![[KJV]]
![[NASB]]
![[NIV]] (1984)
!NIV (2010)
|-
|1 John 3:1
|Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God ....
|See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God ....
|How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! ....
|See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! ....
|-
|Luke 5:20
|And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man [ἄνθρωπος, which is the masculine form: man], thy sins are forgiven thee.
|Seeing their faith, He said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven you."
|When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
|When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
|-
|}

Revisions to the NIV further promote feminist distortions.<ref>[http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/nivfembible.htm The Feminist NIV]</ref> The translating committee for the new version of the [[NIV]] lacks any self-described "complementarians" who support the differences between men and women, for example.<ref>"Moo declined to label any of the committee members as "complementarians' ...."[http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4357&Itemid=53 New NIV translation due out in 2011]</ref>

Feminists also object to 1 Tim 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."), but the original Greek is so clear that not much can be done to distort it. Only the most most liberal translations, as in injecting plural forms of "woman" and "man", and also twisting the second half to read "listen quietly."

== Marriage ==

Feminists are often critical of traditional marriage, and the NIV translation uses the potentially demeaning term to "pledged" rather than "engaged" to describe planned marriages in the Bible. (The term "pledged" connotes a thing or a slave rather than a dignified person.) The NIV says, for example, that Mary was "pledged to be married" rather than "engaged to be married."<ref>See Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:27 and 2:5.</ref>

There are about ten references to the NIV (1984) to "pledged" to be married rather than "engaged" to be married. The 2010 translation to the NIV then added yet another use of "pledged", 1 Corinthians 7:27: "Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife." The more respected [[NASB]] translation of that same passage is: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

== Other Examples ==

Grammatical errors creep into Feminist Bibles due to a reluctance to use the male pronoun, such that the plural, gender-neutral pronoun is used even when referring to only one person. For example, most English translations translate James 2:15-16: "If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to ''them'' ...."<ref>Surprisingly, virtually all English translations from the [[KJV]] to today have this grammatical error. The quoted translation is from the [[New American Bible]].</ref> The pronoun "them" is grammatically incorrect in this case but is intended to avoid using a gender-specific pronoun. The [[New Century Version]] translates that in a grammatically correct (but still awkward style) as "A brother or sister in Christ might need clothes or food. If you say to ''that person'' ...."

Examples of translations that have feminist tendencies are the [[NIV]], the [[New King James Version]], the [[Today's New International Version]], the [[New American Bible]] and, to a lesser extent, the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

For example, in Mark 9:36 Jesus makes reference to a child and a pronoun is then appropriate for referring to the child. The [[New American Bible]] refers to the child as an "it" in order to appease feminism:<ref>Mark 9:36 (NAB) (emphasis added).</ref>

:Taking a child he placed ''it'' in their midst, and putting his arms around ''it'', he said to them ...."

Today's New International Version makes an awkward double reference to "child" to avoid using the masculine pronoun.

Even the [[KJV]] sometimes slips into inappropriate gender-neutral language, as in Romans 8:17 when it translates a form of "τέκνον" as "children" rather than its proper meaning as "sons", which fits the usage in that passage with respect to glorification as Christ was.

In addition to the above, words that are disfavored by feminists and are targets for censorship or distortion by a Feminist Bible:

*girl
*unborn
*manly
*ma'am, madam, and sir
*"women" in connection with "men", as in "men and women"
*masculine forms of titles or offices, as in "prophet" or "congressman", when the person is female
*masculine descriptions of types of persons, as in "layman" (Lv 22:12) or "salesman"
*"dear lady" (2 John 1:5 - the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and [[New King James Version]] drop the "dear", and [[The Message]] drops "lady" too)
*virgin
*the use of the exclusively feminine pronoun to refer to nations, boats, hurricanes, etc.
*the use of the exclusively masculine pronoun to refer to a person of unknown gender
*Mark 5:3 ("no one" preferred by feminists to "no man," despite the obviously male context of the verse)
*submit (used in various forms 23 times in the Bible, most often in reference to a wife's role and, unlike Islam, almost never in reference to submission to God)
*"common man" (which can be used effectively often, as in Luke 10:21<ref>The [[New Century Version]], a [[feminist]] rendition, uses the gender neutral "little children"; the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] uses the gender neutral "infants".</ref>)
*adultery
*words that highlight female personalities related to the attraction of men, or unflattering about women, such as "temptress".
*gentlemanly
*chivalry

(add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender differences]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2011-07-21T18:20:36Z

StoryMaker:

{{debate}}
jesus claimed to be the son of god...right?? according to christanity...

==According to GOD==
Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==According to Jesus himself==
God is refered to as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14; "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, some Jews asked Jesus who he was claiming to be. In his response, he included both the claim that he is the Son of God, and took on the self-existant name, "I AM", that God declared to Moses.
"I AM" is not a clear evidence. This is language that is used by anyone. In other words, whenever anyone speaks about him/herself and says "I AM" we might consider as GOD?!! so "I AM" used in the bible and in any other religious statment does not proof that jesus was GOD.

Jhn 8:53-59 "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? (v.54)Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: (v.55) Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (v.56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. (v.57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (v.58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (v.59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

The Jews obviously understood the dual statements of "my Father...is your God" and "Before Abraham was, I am" as a doubly strong claim to the divine nature of God, since they tried to stone him on the spot.
--[[User:DavidDeering|DavidDeering]] 13:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe I missed it but I have not read any quotes from Jesus saying specifically He was God. Although there is plenty of scripture saying He was the Son and that there is one God. “There is no God but one.” “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Also if Jesus is God, how is it that He said that only the Father knows the Day of the Lord?

:Whether or not Jesus is God comes down to a stupid debate over the definition of "is." We all agree that Jesus was not God in the sense that you can replace the one word with the other, so what's the question? --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:00, 17 November 2007 (EST)

::Although the ''King James'' and other versions (''New English Bible'', ''Jerusalem Bible'', ''New American Bible'' (St. Joseph Edition) translate the Greek ''e•go΄ ei•me΄'' as "I am" and render it in capitals to appear to be a title, that is not the only rendering possible. Context is incredibly important here. The Jews were asking Jesus not about his ''identity'' but about his ''age''. Jesus' answer then had to do with his age, the fact that he had a pre-human existence in heaven ... not a statement of who he is. The book, ''A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research'' states that: "The verb [''ei•mi΄''] ... does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [''e•go΄ ei•me΄''] (Jo. 8:58)." (A.T. Robertson, p. 394). This same idea is conveyed by the wording in ''The Bible-An American Translation'', ''A New Translation of the Bible'' (James Moffat), ''The New Testament-A Translation in the Language of the People'', ''The Simple English Bible'', and ''The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures''.

::*Looking at the context of the entire gospel of John, Jesus consistently draws a separation between himself and God. He refers to God as "Father" and shows that he is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28) and was sent at his Father's direction (John 3:16; 17:3).

::*Looking at the context of all four gospels, Jesus again consistently shows that he is does not believe himself to be God. For example, Luke 22:42 Christ prays in the Garden for, not his will to be done, but the Father's. Mark 15:34, he cries out "My God, my God, what have you forsaken me?" Matthew 28:18, Jesus tells his disciples that authority had been ''given'' him in heaven and on earth. If Jesus knew he was God, none of these would make sense.

::*Looking at the context of the New Testament, the early Christians did not believe Jesus to be God. The most prolific writer, the Apostle Paul, consistently writes about Jesus as the ''Son'' of God ... not God himself. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (''KJV'') - in other words Christ hands over the Kingdom to God the Father, a transaction between two separate people. At Colossians 1:15, Paul refers to Christ as the first-born of all creation. This harmonizes with the concept of Christ Jesus (the Son of God) and God the Father.[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:::John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." yeah...that kind of says he claimed to be God to me...However, the refrence is right, but it is just a text and we need to look at the whole context, which starts at John 10:22. The whole context shows that there is a difference between GOD and Jesus (the father and the son), and the whole context would mean that GOD and jesus are the same as far as the walk in Faith is concerned, and it does not mean that they are one and the same. So This does not present any proof that Jesus was GOD.

:::Jesus also said at Matthew 19:5, regarding Adam and Eve, that they were "one flesh" (referring to their marital union). Nobody would ever construe his words to mean that Jesus ''literally'' meant that the first couple walked around like conjoined twins. Again, context is critical. John 10:36 asks the Jews if they feel he has blasphemed because I said, I am Son of God? At John 17:21, 22 Christ prayed, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." (''KJV'') The Greek word being translated as "one" (''hen''), at both John 10:30 and John 17:21, 22, is neuter, literally "one (thing)," and is used to indicate oneness in cooperation.

:::French theologian John Calvin (July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564), said in the book ''Commentary on the Gospel According to John'': “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.” [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::::Did jesus claim to be be God?... No he did not, because there is not a single vocal statment in the bible where Jesus says that he is God, or where he says worship me...Jesus is not God, however he is a mighty messenger from God.

the concept of the Trinity seems missing in this debate. {{unsigned|Wargammer2005}}

:The word trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are a number of verses which mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit together; such as the baptism of Jesus and following his resurrection. The word Godhead is used a number of times in the KJV which means trinity, interestingly this has been taken out of new translations! I'd be interested on peoples views on this as I find it a difficult doctrine. Adam

:::My remembrance of textual criticisms is a bit fuzzy, but I thought that the use of Godhead, in KJV, was specifically added to have the translation include the Trinity. The text used for the translation was one that included the reference, and that is why it was chosen. I am several years away from any TC study, however, so cannot make this as a solid claim. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::I am confused by the trinity doctrine of three persons in one God. I tend to think this is not Biblically based. How can it be when Jesus said "I am not yet ascended to... my God, and your God" (John 20:17)? Also John says "God.. gave his only begotten Son"(3:16), implying that Jesus was sent? Would be more accurate to say that while there is unity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, only the Father is God, Jesus the Son of God and "the express image of God" and the Spirit of God an agent of God? Adam

::::When it comes to the Bible, confusion generally arises where a teaching is either: 1) inconsistent with what the rest of the Bible says or 2) inconsistent with reality. The trinity doctrine falls apart on both.

::::For example: The Bible uses a Father/Son relationship to describe God and Jesus.

::::*Nowhere ... literally ... does the Bible categorically state ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’

::::*We know from day-to-day life that Father/Son relationships rarely involve two distinct individuals being the same entity. One would assume that if a day-to-day relationship would be a template, you'd look at identical triplets.

::::According to "Harpers Bible Dictionary", it is generally believed that Tertullian (c. 145-220 AD) either coined the term or was the first to use it in reference to God. According to "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge": "The doctines of the ... Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who ... were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy."

::::God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel for thousands of years. If He was a triune deity similar to those worshipped by Israel's enemies the Egyptians and Babylonians, He probably would have mentioned somewhere along the lines - at least to Noah, Abraham or Moses one would imagine.

::::Unfortunately the doctrine is one that for some reason people refuse to be rational about. They find comfort in a "divine mystery" that they aren't supposed to understand.

::::Remember that the problem doesn't lie with the Bible it's in the lies about the Bible. Accept that it is the word of God and pray for guidance in understanding what it ''really'' teaches. [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 22:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::I think it is unfair to imply the trinity is not based on the Bible. Jesus said in Matthew that we are to baptise in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. And the doctrine is mentioned in other parts of the Bible. The divinity of Jesus is shown throughout the gospels(miracles, etc.), letter to hebrews, revelation. Even if one is skeptical of the truine doctrine, I think there is a logic to it, as scripture shows Jesus to be both man (prophet) and divine (Son of God). Regards, Adam
<blockquote>

Did Jesus claim to be be God?... No he did not, because there is not a single vocal statement in the bible where Jesus says that he is God, or where he says worship me...Jesus is not God, however he is a mighty messenger from God.
</blockquote>

:The manner of hermeneutic behind this kind of statement makes only explicit statements within a "red latter" Bible authoritative, as if it was not the same Holy Spirit who inspired the gospels that inspired the narrative also, and the rest of the N.T. by which we interpret the gospels. And as if Jesus often chose not to give direct statements but said (as does the Holy Spirit elsewhere) and did things that left no other conclusion than that He was claiming essential equality with God. It is indeed tragic that the blind Pharisees (etc.) got the clue - and thus sought to destroy Him - but the modern Arian does not. Jesus claim to be the Son of God was itself a claim of Deity, as is illustrated in John 5:18, in which "the Jews sought the more to kill him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." This phrase "alla kai patera idion elege ton theon" conveyed a unique quality of sonship, as Robertsons word pictures explains: “His own” (idion) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by “My Father.” See Rom_8:32 for ho idios huios, “his own Son”

:This is why the Jews sought to apprehend Jesus after He explained Himself John 10, where, because of what He said and did, they charged Jesus with "blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (v. 33). Jesus points out to them that if the Scriptures - which He affirms are the immutable authority - calls mere men "gods" (Ps. 82:6), then how more more fitting it is that He whom the Father sanctified and sent calls Himself the Son of God, as He is God by nature, as His works testify the Father was in Him, and He in Him (vs. 34-38). They did not like that, because like many Arians, they could not perceive God even if He was standing in front of them. "Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand" (v. 38). "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." (Isa 45:15).

:Similarly, this is the answer to the question in John 12:34b, "who is this Son of man? Jesus responds by telling them the light will soon be gone, so "walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them" (vs. 35, 36).

:The Holy Spirit goes on to apply the prophecy given to Isaiah (6:9, 10) to the blindness of the current Jews, and that "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him" (v. 41), the subject being Christ. And who did Isaiah see when he was given that prophecy? None other than the LORD Himself (6:1). It was thus that "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me. And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me" (vs. 44-45).

:Of course we also have the explicit statement that "the Word was God" (John 1:1), which cannot be rendered "a god" unless you want to render other texts in that chapter that way (like v. 12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"). And if Jesus is only a might God, then that would make Him compete with the mighty God of the O.T. (Psalm 50:1), and would make Jesus a false God, as in regards to Deity according to nature the LORD declares, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa 44:8). "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa 46:9). "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isa 45:22). Unless or course, Jesus is what the Holy Spirit declares Him to be in many ways, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8).

:Heb. 1 also attributes to Christ scriptures that are addressed to the person called God, as do other texts (Joel 2:32 x Roman 10:13; Isaiah 40:3 x Mark 3:3; etc.), and overall we see the Deity of Christ incontrovertibly manifested as unique titles, attributes and glory that only belong to the Being called God are ascribed to Christ. See more on this here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html

:Not that Jesus is the Father, or equal in position, but what i see as the most primary essential quality of God is that of possessing His unique uncreated nature, which no one else has, but which the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) possess, as the Scripture saith, "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God," "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Psalm 90:2; Micah 5:2).

:May all, like Thomas, confess to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), to the glory of god the Father. Amen --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

::John 1:1 - In the begging was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 - He was in the beginning with God.

::John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father.

::The first chapter of John also talks about the John the Baptist bearing witness of the Word. Who did John the Baptist bear witness of? Jesus. Who is the Word? Jesus. And it says that ‘the Word WAS God’. Jesus is God. --
:::[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 3 March 2008

:::The following was posted by Christian Zionist @ 10:45PM EDT - 04/17/08

:::Acts 20:28 says:

::Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of '''God which He purchased with His own blood''' (NASB) - God purchased with His own blood - clearly proves that Jesus is God!

:::1 John 5:20 says:

:::And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (NASB) - True God and eternal life - again proves that Jesus is God!

:::Romans 9:5

:::whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

:::(NASB) - Jesus is God blessed forever!

::''Even demons worshipped Jesus and one day all knees will bow down to Jesus. So if someone does not worship Jesus then he/she is worse than demons?''

:::Revelation 4:9 to 11 - Jesus is being worshipped in Heaven! So...

:::4:9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever,

::4:10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

::4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

:::Maintaining context is crucial. In the full context, which includes Chapter 5, we can see that the person receiving the worship in heaven is '''''not''''' Jesus. How? Consider the following:
::* Revelation 5:1-3 the One on the throne holds a book, or scroll, to be opened; an angel asks who is worthy to open the book, or scroll, and no one is found worthy to open it.

:::*Revelation 5:4-6 the apostle John begins to weep because there is no one worthy and is told to stop because there the Lion of the tribe of Judah is worthy, that Lion being seen by John as a Lamb that had been slain. That Lion is also described as the "root of David".

:::John would have recognized both terms as being part of the Messianic prophecies that had been provided by Jacob (Genesis 49:9, 10), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 21:25-26), and Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1,10). John would have concluded, therefore, that the Lamb in front of him was Christ Jesus.

:::In Revelation 4:11 the worthiness of God is put beyond all doubt by right of being the Creator. According to Revelation 5:9, 10, Christ's worthiness to open the book, or scroll, is based on his death (which brings salvation) and the fact that he established a kingdom with those represented by the 24 elders.

:::*Jesus worthiness is unique in that he was proved that it is possible to be human ''and'' faithful to God. Something that was put into question by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, as well as Satan's charge in the case of the patriarch Job. (Job 1:7-12; 2:4-5) God being loyal to himself would prove nothing with regard to Satan's challenge. Jesus being loyal to God despite all that was done to him (including beatings and an excruciatingly painful execution on false charges) is unique in the universe. No man or angel can claim anything close.

:::Obviously then there are two separate individuals being highlighted in Revelation 4 and Revelation 5. The One on the throne being God (not Jesus) and the Lamb of God, Jesus. That John appreciated this can be seen by the words that he would write in his inspired Gospel ''after'' writing Revelation, "for my Father is greater than I". (John 14:28)

:::Respectfully, [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 19:34, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, the two are Jesus and the Father, but that doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God. That simply implies the doctrine of the Trinity. (One God who exists as three persons.) Besides, that doesn't adress all of the other scripture presented in support of the divinity of Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:12, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Erbninc|Erbninc]] 15:17, 19 November 2009 (EST)
You are using a bad translation for Exodus 3:14 bible translators translate Ehyeh at Exodus 3:12 as "become" and then turn around and translate it as "I am" at Exodus 3:14? http://biblos.com/exodus/3-12.htm http://biblos.com/exodus/3-14.htm ( I like this website, it's not a Jehovah's Witness site but let's me look at the Hebrew and Greek for free)....Google the term Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which was used at Exodus 3:14, what do you come up with? Why do people say "I am that I am" is not the correct translation? How does this tie in with the translation of Ehyeh at Exodus 3:12? Now how does this relate to John 8:58 which people say Jesus used "I am" because he was God?
Jesus never claimed to be God at all, he even stated the father was greater than him at John 14:28 and 1 Cor 11:3 confirms that God is over everyone, including Jesus. Notice Revelation 1 Jesus receives the Revelation from God and at Revelation 3:12 he states "My God" several times.

Further more Jesus has brothers and co-heirs and they stem from "one" (Romans 8:17, Heb 2:11-12) They will co-rule with him Revelation 20:6....Jesus can not be God. Any thing that states he is the work of the Anti-christ who wants people to worship anyone but the only True God (John 17:3), Jesus came to mediate mankind's relationship back to God (1 Tim 2:5) not be worshiped.Scriptures like Matthew 14:33 are mistranslated just like Revelation 3:9 where it uses worship in connection with Jesus' followers in the KJV and otehr bibles. You have the same greek word for homage, bow down, obeisance as you do worship (Proskuneo), the context dictates what should be used. Jesus himself said only God should be worshiped at Matthew 4:10. Either the bible contradicts itself or there's a translation error, you guess which it is.

I think a reoccuring theme also is that no one has seen God the Father or in the O.T. God, for they shall surely die. If you shall surely die, who came down and resided in the Temple, sat down and ate and drank with Abraham, who was walking in the Garden of Eden that caused Adam and Eve hide? Let's for a moment call this person the Son of God. Therefore no one has seen the Father yet except for the Son. Jesus eludes to this with statements such as when Moses tapped the rock in the desert for water that he was that rock. He further states that when the Devil was cast out of Heaven that he was there and saw it. Not that he cast him out. In other verses you will find phrases like Nothing that was made was made but through him (referring to Jesus). So the OT says God created the world but more acurrately may state the Son created the world with all the powers of the Father. The OT. did not really deal with Jesus yet but only called him God. So the God of the OT. is the Son and one has seen the Father yet except for the Son.

I know this is an old topic, but I'm a Christian and I just can't leave this alone...

I believe firmly in the deity of Christ, and I believe that this is confirmed by the Bible. (I'll be using NASB for my Scripture quotes, as it is one of the most literal Bible translations around.) It says in Romans 10:9, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;". It directly states here that we must confess Jesus as Lord.

Now, of course, I know the question is "Did JESUS ever claim to be God?", not that his disciples claimed he was God (even though I, personally, believe that all Scripture is God-breathed, and even if it's not expressly said by Jesus, it is being "breathed" by God through the human writers). And it is true that Jesus never expressly said the words, "I am God." But I believe that nonetheless, Jesus did state that he was, in fact, God. I know the passage John 8:56-58 has already been brought up here, but it bears repeating. I know one could say that this passage refers only to Jesus' age and not to his deity, but I must disagree. Look at the wording he uses: "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Sounds like age only, right? But let's look deeper to the meaning in-context.

Look back into the Old Testament to Exodus 3:13-14. (It may be in the Old Testament, but it is not insignificant; Jesus was talking to teachers of the Law, who were VERY familiar with the Old Testament.) Moses is asking God what his name is, and God replies, "“I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”" According to this passage, God's name is "I am". When Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I am," he was ''expressly'' stating that he was God. The Pharisees understood this, considered it blasphemy, and proceeded to stone him.

Now, you could say that Jesus was really not talking about his deity, and that the Pharisees merely misunderstood him. But if Jesus was going to great lengths to use such hugely controversial phrasing that the Pharisees would misinterpret, don't you think he would have at least said something like, "Well, by this I don't mean that I'm God", or just SOME sort of clarification?

For that matter, why did Jesus never state that he wasn't God if he wasn't God? After all, people sure THOUGHT he was God. If Jesus was truly a good man, why didn't he correct them? People referred to Jesus as "Lord" all the time, didn't they?

Before I go on with all that, I must clarify some things. Lots of people are saying, "Well, he wasn't God, he was just the Son of God." I would like to say that, while I firmly believe Jesus is God, I do NOT believe that Jesus is the same thing as God ''the Father.'' The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons - but at the same time, they are all God, and as it says in Deuteronomy 6:4, the LORD is one.

In John 14:8-10, it says, "8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works."
It is clear that there is a VERY strong connection between the Father and the Son that goes beyond the connection between an earthly Father and an earthly Son. Jesus actually says that anyone who sees Him has seen the Father!

I believe that anyone who reads the Bible with a totally open mind will see what I've seen: Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God. The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit may be three different persons, but they are FIRMLY linked together. It is not right to say that Jesus is separate from God. It is shown all throughout Scripture that this is not the case. If you accept the entire Scripture as the infallible Word of God (as I have), you will see that Jesus is '''BOTH''' the Son of God '''AND''' God himself. As it says in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I know that people say that Jesus was just a human who did God's will and was worthy of God, but how can human beings, creatures sinful by nature, attain this? Romans 3:23 makes it clear that all have sinned, but yet Jesus did not! How is this even possible? It is possible because Jesus was BOTH man AND God. And it is through his Sacrifice - the Sacrifice of the LAMB OF GOD, who attained what NO mere human could - that sinful human beings such as I could be redeemed, and considered to be worthy of God, even though this is not from ourselves. There is no way a human being could have possibly lived a totally, completely, utterly sin-free life...unless that human being was ALSO God.

Now, I'll be honest: We could debate this on and on for ALL eternity and probably the vast majority of us would be unconvinced of the other's position. People can't argue each other into the Kingdom of Heaven; only God can truly change hearts. But the point is, doctrinal Christianity as described in the Bible says Christ is divine. Read it yourself with an open mind, and pray for God's insight. As for me, I am decided. Jesus is both God's Son, and God himself. It doesn't need to make sense to the faulty mind of man, for who has known the mind of the Lord? --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 14:20, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2011-07-21T17:35:04Z

StoryMaker: /* Obama Is An Atheist */

==See also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': The 1% issue is a fallacy of weak induction called the "composition fallacy". Every argument it gets into will be a weak argument.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': A vital component of all conspiracy theories is that evidence against the claim is forged and there for constitutes evidence for it. The issue represents a known glitch in human reasoning and a trap that you cannot easily reason someone out of; the "9/11 truthers" are the same way.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

: The point is not ''who said something'' but ''whether it makes sense''. A comment which hasn't been refuted is one for which nobody has been able to think of a refutation (or felt strongly enough about it to write it down here, anyway). I wouldn't object to people signing their comments, but what might be more useful is if people would indicate their agreement with ''any'' comments they agree with, not just their own. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: Agreed. A question I'd like to pursue with the "in crowd" here is: what is the philosophical basis of Conservapedia's fact-base? Is it ultimately derived from Andy Schlafly's authority (i.e. ultimately whatever he says is true ''is'' true as far as Conservapedia is concerned), or from Scripture (in which case: how do we decide between multiple conflicting interpretations?), or from objective reality, or what? --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any [[credibility]] it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
===The Pattern===
HDCase raises the point that it's not that any one of these points is the smoking gun, it's the pattern towards which they all point -- the puzzle into which they all seem to fit. This is a point which needed to be raised, because I think it's what the original article was driving at although it didn't say so explicitly.

To me, however, what this pattern points toward is this:
* a man who had what many Americans would see as a rather unconventional upbringing -- which happened to include a lot of exposure to Islam
* a man who followed his conscience rather than thinking "what will look bad on my political resume, down the road?"
* a man for whom many people have strong antipathy, for a number of reasons-- and who is therefore likely to be seen in a sinister light no matter what the evidence. Some of the accusations above only "work" at all because of the sheer volume and repetition of the "Obama is Muslim" [[big lie]] -- he defends himself against discussion of "my Muslim faith", and that becomes additional "proof".

I mean, look, what indications has the guy ever really given that he's ''Islamic'' rather than, say, just another obnoxious (to you) liberal? Seems to me you'd be better off accusing him of being a closet atheist; I could probably make a case for that if I had the inclination. But Muslim?

Some people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence -- and it's part of what makes America great that this is ok. We can tolerate a diversity of ideas and still get along with each other -- "We could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye-to-eye". (Just don't go expecting your point of view to be taken seriously if you don't have the evidence to back it up.) --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 18:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the [[National liberation movement|black liberation movement]] (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm sorry but I don't buy that you even looked. Most of these issues have been discussed pretty widely, if you only listen to conservative talk radio or very conservative talking heads you wont get that sort of information, but if you pop on to snopes or read the economist or WSJ (both conserative papers I might add) you will get most of the information. The problem is not that Obama didn't put the information out, its that you have coddled your self in undiverse media that has insulated you from the facts in this case. Just like you wouldn't get information on a republican getting screwed over unfairly in the San Fransisco Chronical you aren't going to get information on how a demopcrat is being slighted on the rush limbaugh show. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who cares==

who cares what is Obama's faith? is that REALLY important?--[[User:SocialDemocratic|SocialDemocratic]] 10:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

It is not important whether or not he is a Muslim. What counts is that we keep alive the seed of doubt in people's minds that he ''might'' be and this will help create a sense of anxiety in people who might be tempted to support him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Gloria are you seriously suggesting that we should try to appeal to people's innate xenophobia or racism in trying to convince them that Obama is bad? [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

No, only their mistrust of the dishonest! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 13:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Obama Is An Atheist==

I have presented this view elsewhere on Conservapedia. I maintain that Obama's apathy toward religion does not prove that he is a closet Muslim, but rather that he is a secret atheist. Occam's Razor argues that the simplest explanation is often the more likely, and I believe that the fact that Obama goes to the gym instead of to church simply indicates that his views on religion are tepid, not that he is staging secret Muslim prayer sessions. The fact that he says the sound of the Muslim call to prayer is beautiful simply indicates that he is another liberal with anti-American leanings. The list goes on. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Or maybe he thinks the Islamic call to prayer is beautiful for the same reason he might think a song is beautiful. --- --[[User:OmarAlfarouqo|OmarAlfarouqo]] 23:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:My Dad thinks Obama is an athiest who says Christian things for political reasons. I'm not sure what I think, because personally, I think it's impossible to know for an absolute, positive fact where someone's faith in Christ is at. We can see plenty of indications, but we're not God and we can't "read someone's heart".

:However, I do think that the "athiest theory" makes sense. I mean, he doesn't seem to agree with Christians in the political realm; he's a supporter of abortion (including radical, barbaric partial-birth abortion) and seems sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, both views that are rare among Christians. Plus, I seem to recall his speech at the Easter banquet was rather odd ("There's just something about the resurrection that puts everything in perspective...") And it would make sense for him to pretend to be Christian and say Christian things; in America, it's pretty normal to have a Christian as commander-in-chief, and being an atheist could hurt support for him among Christians.

:But I must emphasize: I do '''NOT''' know what his faith is. I am '''NOT''' God and I could be ''completely wrong'' about this. I'm not trying to say anything conclusive. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 13:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)