Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Abortion deceit

Jdellaro — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:48:02 GMT

Jdellaro: /* #3 */

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So is abstinence costing us $500,000 per missed sexual opportunity? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Abortion deceit

Jdellaro — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:45:34 GMT

Jdellaro: /* #3 */

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So is abstinence costing us $500,000 per missed sexual opportunity? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Resurrection Sunday

Jdellaro — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:40:50 GMT

Jdellaro: New page: How is this the "proper" term when you acknowledge on CP Terms article that you just made it up? I now declare that "Christmas" is now properly known as "Fuglehorn Day", a term I just crea...

How is this the "proper" term when you acknowledge on CP Terms article that you just made it up? I now declare that "Christmas" is now properly known as "Fuglehorn Day", a term I just created.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Bilbo Baggins

Jdellaro — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:26:15 GMT

Jdellaro:

'''Bilbo''', main character of ''[[The Hobbit]]'', was a pivotal character in ''[[Lord of the Rings]]''.

Through much of the beginning of his life, he lived a quiet life in [[Hobbiton]], a hobbit village. Indeed, Tolkien initially portrays him as timid and businesslike, but he draws upon deep resources of courage and fortune to emerge an unlikely hero.

He was the son of Bungo Baggins and Belledonna Took, and master of [[Bag End]] after his father.
Bilbo never married, but rather adopted his nephew [[Frodo Baggins]] as his heir.

''The Hobbit'' is the story of how he along with 13 [[dwarves (Middle-earth)|dwarves]] and a [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]] went on a difficult adventure and defeated a [[Smaug|dragon]], with the help of a magic ring.

In ''The Lord of the Rings'', Bilbo left Frodo in custody of [[The Ring]] before beginning his travels again. In his absence, Frodo received his inheritance of Bag End.

[[category:Literary Figures]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Dungeons and Dragons

Jdellaro — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:06:02 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Relationship with Christianity */

[[Image:Dungeons_and_Dragons.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A ''Dungeons & Dragons'' game in progress.]]
'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a game with a medieval fantasy theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests.

The novel idea behind ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a concept called "[[role-playing]]". The general idea is that players do not compete with one another. Rather the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players efforts.

There is some controversy regarding the contributions and efforts of the primary developers of the game. The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules. Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. The game was eventually sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late seventies the game's popularity exploded and it can rightly be said that the game is now a part of American culture. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity.

In the thirty years since that time, most of these criticisms have been answered. It is now well-understood that while role-playing can be entertainment, role-playing can also be a powerful tool in the active pursuit of good or evil.

==Origins==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]] [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''Blackmoor'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>.

''Blackmoor'' had several key innovations which many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''Blackmoor'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''. Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, [[Lord of the Rings]] was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspire players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames. In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref>

By many accounts, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. ''Dungeon & Dragons'' sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved. It would become an American cultural icon.

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players or the public ''Dungeons & Dragons''. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, but ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is in many respects not unlike "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Backlash==
The sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' would eventually result in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. Many Christian players get around this by altering the world so that it better fits their personal beliefs.

The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils.

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons & Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus).

Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances<ref>Ynet News: [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3052074,00.html "Army frowns on Dungeons and Dragons"]</ref>.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not suggest doing this. In fact, an entire "mature" supplement (though there is no age restriction on who may buy it), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The players are also allowed to choose a variety of different "races" for their characters, including elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarfs and humans. Many supplements have added still more such "races" to the game from which players may choose, including overtly monstrous races, although these races are not considered to be standard or "core." It has also been confirmed that in the upcoming 4th edition of the game humanoid creatures spawned from demons and devils, called "tieflings," will be included as a "core" race<ref>Tieflings as [http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm "Core"]</ref> that players may select, placing them among the primary personas players will adopt in the game.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5. Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was officially announced at Gen Con on August 16, 2007; the first of the new edition's core rulebooks, the ''Player's Handbook'', is scheduled to release in May 2008.

There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons & Dragons.]]
Actions and combat in D&D are most often resolved by rolling polyhedral [[dice]]. While standard dice are six-sided cubes, polyhedral dice have can have 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, or 4 sides. Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die or a percentile die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out of that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot, or due to magical influence (such as a ''dominate'' spell) affecting a character.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24).{{fact}} Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of [[capitalism]].

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Swift-boating

Jdellaro — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:41:04 GMT

Jdellaro: Added Swift Boat useage reference

[[Image:Swiftboating.jpg|300px|thumb|right|On [[Conservapedia]], it's telling the truth about [[Liberals]].]]
'''Swift-boating''' means exposing hard [[truth]]s about [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] who distort the truth or lie for self-serving purposes. It does not mean smearing. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/21/a-reminder-about-the-definition-of-swift-boating/ A reminder about the definition of “Swift-Boating”], [[Michelle Malkin]], ''Michelle Malkin.com'', February 21, 2008</ref>

On Conservapedia, '''Swift-boating''' means exposing hard truths about [[liberals|liberal editors]] who [[censor]] or distort the [[truth]], or engage in [[deceit]]. To date, the term has only been used once, in this form, on Conservapedia.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=swift+boating&go=Go]

== Origin ==
The origin of the term comes from the 2004 Presidential election, when members of Sen. [[John Kerry]]'s swift-boat platoon from Vietnam, came out in opposition to his run with the organization [[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]]<ref>[http://www.swiftvets.com Swiftvets.com]</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Debate:Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
*[[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]]

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

[[Category:Phrases]]

Talk:Conservapedia terms

Jdellaro — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:23:55 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Swift-Boating reversion */

== Minister's son ==

Yes, okay, I can grant that this term was invented here. But why? Isn't it just different wording for what has long been known as a PK, or ''Preacher's kid''? Perhaps I should invent the term Missionary's Son, despite the term MK or ''Missionary's kid'' already being in long use? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Not familiar with "preacher's kid," and that sounds slightly derogatory. We wouldn't say "Kid of Man" instead of "Son of Man," would we? The [[Minister's son]] is to describe an insight that [[liberal]]s deny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:03, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:: maybe we could borrow from [[Dusty Springfield]] and have "Son of a Preacher Man" ;-) [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 09:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::PK is usually used as a derogatory term, while Minister's son is being used on CP as a complimentary description. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::: No, although I can understand why Andy though so, PK is not a derogatory term at all. Well, it may be used that way by some, but it is (relatively) commonly used by PKs (and MKs) themselves. Just have a look at the [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-33%2CGGLG%3Aen-GB&q=PK+MK+preacher+kid+missionary&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en Google hits for "PK MK preacher kid missionary"]. Admittedly it is not used to refer to people who have made significant accomplishments, but apart from that, and that it is not limited to males, it means essentially the same thing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Also, you can purchase a range of PK and MK clothing and other items! [http://www.cafepress.com/peopleacronyms/3007626][http://www.cafepress.com/peopleacronyms/3008395] Andy, you're going to have to list this under "something I've learnt today"!! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: OK, the uses on the links you cite are not derogatory, but they are not complimentary either. Like the word "kid" itself, it is disfavored in an educational context like ours here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Swift-Boating reversion==
Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed in an original manner by one or more editors on Conservapedia. 
[[Swift-Boating]] was developed in an original manner by me. On Conservapedia, it's telling the truth about Liberals. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:Actually, you did not develop it in an original manner. Your article was created on February 24th. The definition you provide was taken, verbatim, from the Michelle Malkin article on February 21st. You didn't develop anything. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:16, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::Even though the word was already defined, we are using it here to describe Liberals - not just Democrats. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:20, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::So by expanding it from "Democrats" to "Liberals", you are honestly suggesting that you developed it in an original manner? If I change the word Republicans to conservatives in an entry---I've "developed" a new entry? Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. I'm calling for the judges, b/c that obvious rip-off from the Malkin article doesn't pass as original.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::And to add, Crocoite---you didn't use it here to describe Liberals. In the "original" entry---you have it defining Democrats. It's a quote from the Malkin article. You didn't develop anything! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Conservapedia terms

Jdellaro — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:22:30 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Swift-Boating reversion */

Talk:Conservapedia terms

Jdellaro — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:16:42 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Swift-Boating reversion */

Conservapedia terms

Jdellaro — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:04:02 GMT

Jdellaro: Swift-boating is neither original nor developed by an editor here

Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed on [[Conservapedia]]. Some are entirely original to [[Conservapedia]], while others were developed in an original manner by one or more editors here. Examples include:

*[[90/10 rule]]
*[[Affirmative acting]]
*[[Affirmative Action President]]
*[[Atheistic denial]]
*[[Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Conservaphobia]]
*[[Deliberate ignorance]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]
*[[Genius bias]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Godspeed]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Gunaphobia]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[liberal friendship]]
*[[liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal redefinition]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Mindless equality]]
*[[Minister's son]]
*[[Movement conservative]]
*[[Photo bias]]
*[[Placement bias]]
*[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Quantifying Openmindedness]]
*[[Racial censorship]]<ref>This was first coined by black Professor Walter Williams.</ref>
*[[Essay:Supreme Court Half-Life|Supreme Court Half-Life]]
*[[Transaction benefits]]
*[[Why Conservative?]]
*[[Young mass murderers]]

This list will grow over time, and feel free to add to it.

[[category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

Jdellaro — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:35:16 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Goal of the game */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:School prayer

Jdellaro — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:54:12 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Query */

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a [[Bible]]. Public schools are more properly described as [[atheistic]], where religion is affirmatively censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: There is a prohibition on prayer in [[public school]], and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the [[United States]] cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
* [http://www.onelook.com/?w=secular&ls=a OneLook] gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular Merriam-Webster] gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives ''secular courts'' as an example.
* The [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular Online Etymology Dictionary] says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.

It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The ''secular courts'' example above illustrates this. A ''secular court'' was distinct from a ''church court''. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.

In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.

Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that ''excludes'' religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't ''have to'' have prayer, but that they are ''not allowed to'' have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state ''allowed'', but didn't ''enforce'' school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ''ban'' it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Bible study paragraph ==

This paragraph wasn't about prayer, but it's still good for an article about the Bible and public schools:
<blockquote>
From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: You are drawing a hairsplitting distinction that is not worth making. Bible study is often associated with prayer, and if Bible study is banned, then prayer is also. In borderline cases, we leave material in the entry because it is informative. We disfavor censorship of valuable information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::: I think changing the title is a good idea (although I have a problem with the term "''public'' [[School#Public school|schools]]" (see that link). "Religion in schools" has broader application than "School prayer". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Query ==
Hi guys, I have a query. Firstly, as a Non-US citizen, I dont want to discuss whether or not prayer in school should be legal/illegal but I am wondering why it is such a big issue. In my school we had the lords prayer before a school assembly and those who were not religious (or of other religions) did not have to participate but we certainly did not have to have prayer before the start of each day. The reasons being is that people who want to pray would certainly pray before school with their family. Surely also a teacher can pray for/with his class either before the school day or lead those students in prayer who wish to privately. I think it is the parents who instill values and religion and should not be the realm of the government or school. Unless of course it is a catholic/sunday school/what-have-you that the parents have choosen to send their children to.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: (Reply from a non-US citizen!) In America all prayer that is in any way "endorsed" by the school (including implicitly) is effectively illegal. This includes the Lord's Prayer at an assembly, prayer by a teacher (whether in class or not), prayer by anyone during class time, and even prayer by a student at any gathering sanctioned by the school, it seems. There's video online of a student acknowledging God (not actually praying) in her graduation speech (I think it was, or something like that) having the microphone turned off by the school because of that. It's not so much that prayer is not endorsed or encouraged, but that it is banned (or censored, if you like). That is, if the teacher ''wants'' to pray, and the student have no objection, the teacher is still not permitted to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well put, Philip. MetcalfeM, it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place. Liberal concepts like evolution are not censored in the classroom. Why is prayer censored there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Censorship is suppression of information, not an action. And censorship is often used—and I expect that this is the way Andy is using it—to mean ''unreasonable'' suppression of an idea. That is, I very much doubt that Andy is opposed to ''all'' censorship, but banning of school prayer is ''unreasonable'' censorship. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: First off, Andy specifically said, "it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place." I used the word, "flirting", but if you'd prefer, if I went into a bar and made sexually suggestive comments to females, that would be accepted. But I couldn't do that in a classroom. Is that censorship? And if censorship is suppression of information, how is leading a class in prayer considered, "information" as opposed to "action"? And where's the line drawn between ''reasonable'' censorship and ''unreasonable'' censorship?--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 09:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)

That I understand. While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class regardless of belief or parents wishes I would certainly agree that it is not right for a blanket ban to be imposed. I mean, I am not religious however if I was part of a school sports team and some of my team members wished to have a prayer circle, while I may not join them, I wouldn't care. Each to there own I say.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: You are censoring the teacher or coach with respect to prayer, but not with respect to their expressing liberal views. Why do you support such censorship?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I support no censorship. Did you not read my post? I dont think it is a teachers responsibility to lead my children in prayer. That is my responsibilty. However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time. Also, if the coach wants to pray with his team, go right ahead, but I wouldn't join the prayer circle and shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa).
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: I did read your post, and reread it. You said, "While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class ...." That's called censorship of the teacher. There is no other (logical) way to describe it. You're likely fine with the teacher leading the class on evolution or his views about a political candidate. But, oh no, NOT prayer. That's censorship, plain and simple. You're fighting logic, not me, to deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Excuse me Ashlafly, I didnt mention evolution or politics once!
"However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time"
How is this censorship of the teacher?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.

The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray ''in that circumstance'', yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put ''other'' views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM ''is'' being in consistent ''if'' he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should ''not'' be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I ''would'' be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.

But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting ''or even implicitly endorsing'' a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are ''required'' to promote (''explicitly'' endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Nice clarification Phillip! Yes I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree etc etc as you pointed out. I also dont think that teachers should push political beliefs unless asked directly what the think. Same with relgious beliefs. As for evolution, well, I think that evolution should be taught in science class however I am a bit divided on creation being taught alongside. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought but if pressed I could say that it would be an idea to teach the holes in evolution? Maybe let students make their own minds up? Its a thorny issue which, to be honest, I dont really want to debate. Thanks for your clarification though Phillip. You aussies aint all bad you know!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: I also think that evolution should be taught, simply because so many people believe it that it's something that everyone should know about. But it should not be taught as truth, as it usually is. The opposition to Christian views, however, extends even to the extreme of banning telling students that they should keep an open mind about evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Philip, that seems like a fairly rational assessment. It does often seem like there is a double standard in these issues that is not often recognized. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I welcome Metcalfe saying that he's fine with a teacher praying with a class if everyone agrees, but very few people really base their view on that distinction and, frankly, Metcalfe himself didn't either. It was Philip who introduced that distinction. Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects. Moreover, why would the objection of just one student be able to cause the censorship of everyone else? That doesn't make much sense, and it is a form of censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Phillip did claify what I was trying to get across actually. He explained it better than I did is all. Anyways, I'm off for the day. Enjoy the debate without the token atheist! ;-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It's probably true that "Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects", but there ''are'' exceptions, and we have to be careful not to presume that any particular individual fits the stereotype. I also agree that the objection of a single student should not be able to stop everyone else having prayer. In some circumstances, being able to opt out is a good practice, but when it comes to prayer, having a student leave the classroom for the 30 seconds (or whatever, it could well be longer, but might well be quite short also) that a prayer is being said is unnecessary mucking around. Also, atheists consider prayer to be meaningless, so what harm is there if a student has to listen to a prayer being said? It's not like the student is required to participate (pray also) or believe; all he has to do is sit there quietly while the prayer is being said. What's so wrong with that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Andy and Phil, I have a hypothetical question. Let's say an observant Jewish child (like mine) is in a majority Christian class, and feels, well, very uncomfortable when the teacher wants to lead the class in the Lord's Prayer? Is it just "tough knuckles" for my boy? We do have a bit of unpleasant history around these issues.[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: What is so "tough" about it? What's so hard about him simply sitting through it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: Being in the majority religion, I'm sure it's not obvious. It sends a systemic message of exclusion - "this is not your school" - and suggests that one religion has priority over the other in affairs of state. Constitutionally... that shouldn't be the case.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I'm not talking constitutionally. How does it "send a message of exclusion"? The very fact that a predominantly ''Christian'' environment welcomes Jews indicates that they are ''not'' excluded! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::"Welcome! Glad you're here! Now sit there, okay good, and listen while you tell you about our religion. No no, we'd rather not hear about yours."-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So now we've switched from ''praying'' to ''talking about'' a religion? I must have missed that switch. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: Isn't praying a religion-specific speech act?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Huh? Yes, you could invent that term for it, but that's like saying that a robin is a bird, and a crow is a bird, so a robin is a crow. We were talking specifically about prayer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Let's say you lived in northern new jersey in a mostly jewish town. If the teacher wanted to say the Shema before every class, which is a prayer which basically repudiated Christianity, what would you suggest for your kid?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: To witness to his fellow students. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::So school should become a free-for-all, religion-off, where students are encouraged to disrupt each other's learning by pushing their beliefs at each other in an unmediated environment?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Please show me where in my comment I said anything about witnessing ''during class time'', ''in a disruptive way'', or by ''pushing'' their beliefs on others. Or retract the comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::I'm just trying to point out that encouraging students to speak up for themselves assumes (1) that children can and are willing to, and will always do so, (2) and that there will be no social consequences for them. What school child, surrounded by religions different than his own, will react first by trying to convert them, or defend themselves?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: So you didn't show me where I said that, and you didn't retract it as requested.
::::: Encouraging a student to witness does assume that children can do so, but they can, so that's not an issue. It doesn't presume that they are willing; if anything it assumes the opposite, as you often ''encourage'' someone to do something that they are ''not'' willing to do. And for the same reason, neither does it assume that they ''will'' do so. Neither does it assume that there will be no social consequences, and neither have you explained the relevance of that. What school child will witness? One who has been taught sufficiently well to have confidence in himself and his beliefs, and one who has been encouraged to do so.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So, you would be comfortable if a Muslim student witnessed to your child on a daily basis? Or would you consider this harrassment? If this would be harassment, then so would it be for your child to witness to other students. Again, are you suggesting you would feel comfortable if your child was told to sit quietly at his desk while a Hindu encouraged student to open their third eye and worship the god Vishnu? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: It could be harassment if they were asked to stop and didn't, but it need not be harassment. Not only would I feel quite comfortable with a Muslim child witnessing to my child, I would ''welcome'' it. I witnessed to some Mormons once; I invited them into my home and allowed them to say what they wanted. Having done that, I then had a right to say to them what ''I'' wanted to say. Similarly, a Muslim child witnessing to my child would at the very least impose an obligation on the Muslim child to return the favour, as well as indicate that the child is open to discussing such issues. It's ''other'' religions, such as atheism, that have beliefs so fragile that they have to [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|censor opposing views]]. I would not object to my child having to sit through a worship of Vishnu if (a) the school was a Hindu-run school, (b) the school was in a predominantly Hindu country, or (c) if the school was a government school in a Christian country but in a predominantly Hindu area and openly intended to provide education to Hindus. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The creative attempts to justify classroom prayer are illogical and self-contradictory:

* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even all want to participate in it
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even if an objection by one can be addressed without banning the prayer
* the [[censor]]s oppose classroom prayer even though objections to [[atheistic]] speech are rejected

Only an extremely biased person would fail to recognize that the above three positions can only be reconciled in one way: the censors oppose classroom prayer for a reason independent of any purported offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::Might I add my two English pence? I recently spent a week in Belgium doing some work experience in a primary school. Over there, they have absolutely no religious themes or practices in classrooms, since, particularly where I worked, there is a big mix of ethnicities and religions. However, every week an hour was set aside for children to attend "religious classes", where all beliefs were catered for. For example, all the Jewish children would attend a class run by a local rabbi, the Muslims by a local cleric and so on. Children who had no religious affiliation would go to "morals and ethics". Surely this is an effective way of solving the "classroom prayer" quandry? Having certain times set aside for Religious Education where kids can be led in prayer by leaders of their own faith? Perhaps I am way out, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that it '''is''' possible to reach a compromise in regards to religion and prayer in classrooms. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 09:07, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::: Thanks for your two English pence, which is informative, but this debate is about classroom prayer, and while your scenario is an improvement it still does not end the censorship in classroom prayer. I start my class in writing with 40 teenagers with a simple, non-denominational prayer, sometimes said by me and sometimes said by a volunteer student. As you can see here, there are some who demand censorship of that, at least in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:School prayer

Jdellaro — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:06:38 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Query */

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a [[Bible]]. Public schools are more properly described as [[atheistic]], where religion is affirmatively censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: There is a prohibition on prayer in [[public school]], and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the [[United States]] cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
* [http://www.onelook.com/?w=secular&ls=a OneLook] gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular Merriam-Webster] gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives ''secular courts'' as an example.
* The [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular Online Etymology Dictionary] says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.

It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The ''secular courts'' example above illustrates this. A ''secular court'' was distinct from a ''church court''. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.

In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.

Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that ''excludes'' religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't ''have to'' have prayer, but that they are ''not allowed to'' have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state ''allowed'', but didn't ''enforce'' school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ''ban'' it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Bible study paragraph ==

This paragraph wasn't about prayer, but it's still good for an article about the Bible and public schools:
<blockquote>
From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the [[Bible]] and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over "separation of church and state." Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: You are drawing a hairsplitting distinction that is not worth making. Bible study is often associated with prayer, and if Bible study is banned, then prayer is also. In borderline cases, we leave material in the entry because it is informative. We disfavor censorship of valuable information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Well, then maybe we need to have the article renamed to "Religion in public schools" and formatted with headings about prayer and the Bible, because there are lots of incidents where students simply reading the Bible have been chastised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::: I think changing the title is a good idea (although I have a problem with the term "''public'' [[School#Public school|schools]]" (see that link). "Religion in schools" has broader application than "School prayer". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Query ==
Hi guys, I have a query. Firstly, as a Non-US citizen, I dont want to discuss whether or not prayer in school should be legal/illegal but I am wondering why it is such a big issue. In my school we had the lords prayer before a school assembly and those who were not religious (or of other religions) did not have to participate but we certainly did not have to have prayer before the start of each day. The reasons being is that people who want to pray would certainly pray before school with their family. Surely also a teacher can pray for/with his class either before the school day or lead those students in prayer who wish to privately. I think it is the parents who instill values and religion and should not be the realm of the government or school. Unless of course it is a catholic/sunday school/what-have-you that the parents have choosen to send their children to.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: (Reply from a non-US citizen!) In America all prayer that is in any way "endorsed" by the school (including implicitly) is effectively illegal. This includes the Lord's Prayer at an assembly, prayer by a teacher (whether in class or not), prayer by anyone during class time, and even prayer by a student at any gathering sanctioned by the school, it seems. There's video online of a student acknowledging God (not actually praying) in her graduation speech (I think it was, or something like that) having the microphone turned off by the school because of that. It's not so much that prayer is not endorsed or encouraged, but that it is banned (or censored, if you like). That is, if the teacher ''wants'' to pray, and the student have no objection, the teacher is still not permitted to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well put, Philip. MetcalfeM, it's called censorship when something is permitted to be said only at home, or only in special place. Liberal concepts like evolution are not censored in the classroom. Why is prayer censored there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: In America, I can legally go into a bar and flirt with the females without any problem. But if I were a teacher, and I did that to one of the students, I would be (correctly) disciplined and/or fired for that behavior. Is that censorship, Aschlafly? According to your definition it is. Do you support the right of teachers to flirt with their students? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

That I understand. While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class regardless of belief or parents wishes I would certainly agree that it is not right for a blanket ban to be imposed. I mean, I am not religious however if I was part of a school sports team and some of my team members wished to have a prayer circle, while I may not join them, I wouldn't care. Each to there own I say.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: You are censoring the teacher or coach with respect to prayer, but not with respect to their expressing liberal views. Why do you support such censorship?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I support no censorship. Did you not read my post? I dont think it is a teachers responsibility to lead my children in prayer. That is my responsibilty. However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time. Also, if the coach wants to pray with his team, go right ahead, but I wouldn't join the prayer circle and shouldn't have to be exposed to it. But I have no problem whatsoever with a prayer being said as long as it is done respectifully to others beliefs (and vice versa).
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:36, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: I did read your post, and reread it. You said, "While I wouldnt agree with a teacher leading a prayer in class for the whole class ...." That's called censorship of the teacher. There is no other (logical) way to describe it. You're likely fine with the teacher leading the class on evolution or his views about a political candidate. But, oh no, NOT prayer. That's censorship, plain and simple. You're fighting logic, not me, to deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Excuse me Ashlafly, I didnt mention evolution or politics once!
"However if a teacher wishes to pray with the religious students of his/her class then fine, go right ahead. But on their own time (5 mins before class starts maybe?) not my childrens time"
How is this censorship of the teacher?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.

The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray ''in that circumstance'', yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put ''other'' views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM ''is'' being in consistent ''if'' he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should ''not'' be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I ''would'' be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.

But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting ''or even implicitly endorsing'' a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are ''required'' to promote (''explicitly'' endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Nice clarification Phillip! Yes I do believe that it is fine for a teacher to pray with students if they agree etc etc as you pointed out. I also dont think that teachers should push political beliefs unless asked directly what the think. Same with relgious beliefs. As for evolution, well, I think that evolution should be taught in science class however I am a bit divided on creation being taught alongside. To be honest I haven't given it a lot of thought but if pressed I could say that it would be an idea to teach the holes in evolution? Maybe let students make their own minds up? Its a thorny issue which, to be honest, I dont really want to debate. Thanks for your clarification though Phillip. You aussies aint all bad you know!
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: I also think that evolution should be taught, simply because so many people believe it that it's something that everyone should know about. But it should not be taught as truth, as it usually is. The opposition to Christian views, however, extends even to the extreme of banning telling students that they should keep an open mind about evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Philip, that seems like a fairly rational assessment. It does often seem like there is a double standard in these issues that is not often recognized. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I welcome Metcalfe saying that he's fine with a teacher praying with a class if everyone agrees, but very few people really base their view on that distinction and, frankly, Metcalfe himself didn't either. It was Philip who introduced that distinction. Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects. Moreover, why would the objection of just one student be able to cause the censorship of everyone else? That doesn't make much sense, and it is a form of censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Phillip did claify what I was trying to get across actually. He explained it better than I did is all. Anyways, I'm off for the day. Enjoy the debate without the token atheist! ;-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 22:46, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It's probably true that "Nearly everyone who opposes classroom prayer also opposes it even if no one objects", but there ''are'' exceptions, and we have to be careful not to presume that any particular individual fits the stereotype. I also agree that the objection of a single student should not be able to stop everyone else having prayer. In some circumstances, being able to opt out is a good practice, but when it comes to prayer, having a student leave the classroom for the 30 seconds (or whatever, it could well be longer, but might well be quite short also) that a prayer is being said is unnecessary mucking around. Also, atheists consider prayer to be meaningless, so what harm is there if a student has to listen to a prayer being said? It's not like the student is required to participate (pray also) or believe; all he has to do is sit there quietly while the prayer is being said. What's so wrong with that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Andy and Phil, I have a hypothetical question. Let's say an observant Jewish child (like mine) is in a majority Christian class, and feels, well, very uncomfortable when the teacher wants to lead the class in the Lord's Prayer? Is it just "tough knuckles" for my boy? We do have a bit of unpleasant history around these issues.[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:: What is so "tough" about it? What's so hard about him simply sitting through it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: Being in the majority religion, I'm sure it's not obvious. It sends a systemic message of exclusion - "this is not your school" - and suggests that one religion has priority over the other in affairs of state. Constitutionally... that shouldn't be the case.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::: I'm not talking constitutionally. How does it "send a message of exclusion"? The very fact that a predominantly ''Christian'' environment welcomes Jews indicates that they are ''not'' excluded! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::"Welcome! Glad you're here! Now sit there, okay good, and listen while you tell you about our religion. No no, we'd rather not hear about yours."-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So now we've switched from ''praying'' to ''talking about'' a religion? I must have missed that switch. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: Isn't praying a religion-specific speech act?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Huh? Yes, you could invent that term for it, but that's like saying that a robin is a bird, and a crow is a bird, so a robin is a crow. We were talking specifically about prayer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Let's say you lived in northern new jersey in a mostly jewish town. If the teacher wanted to say the Shema before every class, which is a prayer which basically repudiated Christianity, what would you suggest for your kid?[[User:LeonardH|LeonardH]] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: To witness to his fellow students. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::So school should become a free-for-all, religion-off, where students are encouraged to disrupt each other's learning by pushing their beliefs at each other in an unmediated environment?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Please show me where in my comment I said anything about witnessing ''during class time'', ''in a disruptive way'', or by ''pushing'' their beliefs on others. Or retract the comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::I'm just trying to point out that encouraging students to speak up for themselves assumes (1) that children can and are willing to, and will always do so, (2) and that there will be no social consequences for them. What school child, surrounded by religions different than his own, will react first by trying to convert them, or defend themselves?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:22, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: So you didn't show me where I said that, and you didn't retract it as requested.
::::: Encouraging a student to witness does assume that children can do so, but they can, so that's not an issue. It doesn't presume that they are willing; if anything it assumes the opposite, as you often ''encourage'' someone to do something that they are ''not'' willing to do. And for the same reason, neither does it assume that they ''will'' do so. Neither does it assume that there will be no social consequences, and neither have you explained the relevance of that. What school child will witness? One who has been taught sufficiently well to have confidence in himself and his beliefs, and one who has been encouraged to do so.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: So, you would be comfortable if a Muslim student witnessed to your child on a daily basis? Or would you consider this harrassment? If this would be harassment, then so would it be for your child to witness to other students. Again, are you suggesting you would feel comfortable if your child was told to sit quietly at his desk while a Hindu encouraged student to open their third eye and worship the god Vishnu? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: It could be harassment if they were asked to stop and didn't, but it need not be harassment. Not only would I feel quite comfortable with a Muslim child witnessing to my child, I would ''welcome'' it. I witnessed to some Mormons once; I invited them into my home and allowed them to say what they wanted. Having done that, I then had a right to say to them what ''I'' wanted to say. Similarly, a Muslim child witnessing to my child would at the very least impose an obligation on the Muslim child to return the favour, as well as indicate that the child is open to discussing such issues. It's ''other'' religions, such as atheism, that have beliefs so fragile that they have to [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|censor opposing views]]. I would not object to my child having to sit through a worship of Vishnu if (a) the school was a Hindu-run school, (b) the school was in a predominantly Hindu country, or (c) if the school was a government school in a Christian country but in a predominantly Hindu area and openly intended to provide education to Hindus. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

Jdellaro — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:39:26 GMT

Jdellaro: Still no cites, Andy?

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Homeland security

Jdellaro — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:16:19 GMT

Jdellaro:

{{stub}}
The Department of Homeland Security was officially created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

==Quotes==

* ... in Section 201(d) of the 2002 Homeland Security Act Congress expressly directed the Department of Homeland Security to engage in "[[data mining]]" to try to protect the country from [[terrorism]]. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/EDITORIAL/19185942]

==External links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/EDITORIAL/19185942 Pushing PC nonsense] - ''Washington Times'' editorial - Robert F. Turner - March 3, 2008

Talk:Homeschooling

Jdellaro — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:38:01 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Churchill */

==Private Tutoring==

Does private tutoring really count as homeschooling? I don't see why it should. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homschoolers at harvard.==
I read it some were, but it is true that 10% of students in a classroom at Harvard were homseschooled. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:For a claim like that, I doubt "I read it somewhere" works; finding a citation shouldn't be hard if it's true, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will try to find it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:42, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Great! Find a citation *first*, then feel free to add it to the article. Since only about 2% of kids are homeschooled, it would be astounding to find 10% at Harvard. Also note that 10% in a particular classroom is not the same as 10% of the Harvard student body. If your statement is true, then it deserves much more prominence in the article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Alright I found the information, but I was wrong. 10% of the Students accepted are homeschooled.:) so am I.... not going to Harvard though. so if you still want the link i can get it, or if not, no problem. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, make sure it's 10% of accepted students are homeschooled, not 10% of homeschooled applicants are accepted. Then go ahead and add it, just make sure you quote it properly (very important for statistics) and include the citation, including the title, etc. so it will show up nicely in the references section. Thanks for adding to this article!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Who are you by the way mom? I mean you sound like you have been here longer than I have, and thats a long time.ok here is the link: [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked/ homeschoolers at Harvard] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
: I'm a homeschooling mom, of course! <smile>. Will, the statistic was what I suspected. It said that homeschoolers have an acceptance rate of 10%, which is the same as the general acceptance rate at Harvard. On the one hand, it doesn't show homeschoolers doing any better than anyone else, but on the other hand, it does show they can do *as well as* anyone else. Why don't you do a bit more research and write a paragraph about homeschoolers getting into college? The one in the article is a good model - I bet you can find a few other sources too, and come up with something quite worthwhile! Now I'm off to do my housework, but will check back to see what you've come up with! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That Boston Globe article is excellent, it's a real "find." I'm going to follow Hsmom's lead and let Will N. draft something rather than do something with it myself.

I can't figure out exactly what the sentence means: "At Harvard, the acceptance rate of the general applicant pool is about 10 percent, which mirrors the success of home-schoolers." I read it the same way Hsmom does, but it's not perfectly clear.

However, it says specifically that the acceptance rate of homeschoolers at ''Williams College'' (a famous, excellent, old, small liberal arts college) is 20 percent. And [http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm this article] says that William's general acceptance rate is 19.2%. In other words, a homeschoolers are exactly as successful in gaining admission to Williams as anyone else.

The key point to be made, which should be supported with well-chosen quotations from the Globe article, is that homeschoolers are just as successful at being admitted to major colleges as others, and that these days college admissions offices are familiar with homeschooling and have no problem with it. I like the line: "We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives."

If homeschoolers are about as successful at getting accepted as the general population, and if homeschoolers currently amount to something like 2% of all students, then ''presumably'' the percentage of Harvard students who were homeschooled would be 2%. 2% of 6700 = about 130 in all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

----

I would dispute saying Patton was a Christian as he believed in reincarnation (show me where this is in line with scripture)
Brigham Young was a Mormon, not a christian.

:Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

:The official name of their church is ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' ("LDS Church" for short).

:See material I've just moved to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Mormons' relationship to Christianity]].

:One dictionary definition of "Christian" is "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." It seems to me that Mormons meet that definition.

:Who ought to make the judgement, among all the denominations that regard themselves as Christian, which are "really Christian?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:P. S. The question of what Mormons believe is sure to receive a lot of discussion in a year or so, since Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is running for President. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:14, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Are you a Mormon? Not to be prejudiced against you if you are but just wondering.
Will N.

*No, I'm not a Mormon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:I probably should explain more. I did react to the phrase "a Mormon not a Christian." What went through my mind, and what I knew ''off the top of my head'' was: "Whoa! That's not right. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, and the church is even called Church of ''Jesus Christ'' of the Latter-day Saints." I also got just a little bit of steam up, because there '''is''' some discrimination against Mormons—assuming Mitt Romney runs I think we'll have plenty of chance to see this soon—and saying that Mormons aren't Christians sounds a little like an attack.

:So, after I wrote what I knew off the top of my head, from my experience with Wikipedia and with college, etc. I've found that if you want to convince other people, instead of just telling them what you think, it helps if you can show them ''why'' you think that. So I decided to do a bit of very quick research. I figured that Mormons probably get asked this question a lot and that the official LDS church website would probably have something to say about it.

:First I found the passage I put in quotation marks above, the one that begins "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I probably should have stopped there, but when I saw that they actually have a "Frequently Asked Questions" page with answers to the questions "Are you Christians" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?" I couldn't resist putting that in, too. I probably put in too much. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Ben Franklin was a Deist --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)

:Yes, that's right... no time to look further but I'm pretty sure Franklin did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and did not belong to an organized Christian church. Guess the whole list needs checking? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:45, 19 January 2007 (EST)

==Homeschooled or not?==

I made a minor edit to the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart entry today reflecting the fact that he was homeschooled. This was almost immediateley changed back by dpbsmith, with the explanation that "he wasn't homeschooled as we know the term today"

Now, this is all well and good, except that in the article for omeschooling, his name is on the list of famous people who were homeschooled, with an internal link to theMozart article!

So which is it? Was he homeschooled or not? And please, this is isn't an attempt to start a big discussion of the meaning of homeschooling etc. I'm just asking for some consistency between articles here. Either a person was homeschooled, in which case their entries should be amended to reflect that fact, or they should be removed from the list of "Famous people who were homeschooled."

I'll wait a bit to see what the consensus is, but if their names are still on that list in a few days, I'm going to fix those articles to reflect that fact.
--[[User:TrueReaganConservative|TrueReaganConservative]] 13:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds—Emerson.

:The thing is that ''this'' article is sort of a hash. I haven't wanted to take this sorry article entire, shatter it to bits and remould it nearer to my heart's desire because I think it's here as a sort of inspiration to the students who use the site. It looks to me like one of those "X pride" lists where X is any group that is a little out of the mainstream and wants to encourage its members that it's OK.

:The quickest way to fix ''this'' article would be retitle the actual list something like "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home."

:This isn't really a factual article about homeschooling, it's a point-of-view piece that says that being educated at home not only does not put you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis public or private schools, it can be an advantage. ''This is very arguably true'' and the list is evidence in support of it.

:What the list is ''not'' is a list of people who have undergone "Christian homeschooling."

:Homeschooling is a sort of movement, mostly in the U. S. I think, that began more or less in the 1970s. Around that time there was a noticable drop in public confidence in the public schools. Maybe I remember it had something to do with John Holt? ''How Children Fail?''

:"Homeschooling" to me does not mean simply being educated at home. It means that parents have ''actively opted out'' of an ''existing system of compulsory public schooling,'' and educate their children at home in order to assert direct personal supervision of the content and values that their children are being taught.

:Calling Mozart (say) "homeschooled" is like calling Thomas Jefferson "a Republican" or William Gladstone "a Liberal" or asserting "Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin were both Georgians." Technically true, but confusing at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll defer to the consensus view, but I don't see why Mozart should be eliminated. He was homeschooled in a Christian manner. What's the big deal about observing that fact? I don't think there has to have been compulsory education in his day to make this observation meaningful. At a minimum, Mozart is an example of someone who learned at home and excelled afterwards. Probably his home education has something to do with his work. This is information worth preserving, and let readers debate as they wish. As Fox News says, "We report. You decide."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==George Bernard Shaw==
'''George Bernard Shaw'''... hmmm... I don't think he would have cared for being labelled as a Christian. You can make out a case that he did accept some of the moral teachings of Jesus ''as Shaw, personally'' interpreted them. But in his will, he wrote:

:My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative revolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,813999,00.html]

If he was a Christian, he was an awfully complicated and unusual Christian. He certainly did not belong to any organized denomination. He wrote that there was “not a single established religion in the world in which an intelligent or educated man could believe."

He did write that "Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it." And he wrote that "Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly." That is, he did not think any organized Christian religions actually practiced the teachings of Jesus.

He wrote a lot about Christianity in his Preface to ''Androcles and the Lion.'' I'm not going to try to summarize it, partly because I haven't read it through in a long time, but also because Shaw's ideas are so very original and unorthodox that they are really hard to pigeonhole.

He dealt with religious themes in his plays ''Saint Joan,'' ''Major Barbara,'' and ''Androcles and the Lion,'' and in their prefaces, but if you can tell "which side" he's on after reading those plays, you're better than I am.

He also dealt with evolution, in the play ''Back to Methuselah'' and the Preface to it—in a way which will not please either evolutionists or creationists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:10, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I question the inclusion of '''Mark Twain,''' similarly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:32, 20 January 2007 (EST)

== Recent additions ==

Harpie Snark recently added John Walker Lindh, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Christopher Paolini to the list. I deleted them when reverting some vandalism.

I'm restoring Charles Fletcher Lummis and Christopher Paolini on his say-so.

Franklin D. Roosevelt attended Groton, an elite private prep school.

John Walker Lindh is a Taliban member and Adam Yahiye Gadahn is an Al-Qaeda member. I don't think they should go onto the list without a pretty good source citation, on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or, in this case, surprising claims require good evidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:Christopher Paolini is the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). I know he was home schooled, but have never seen anything about his beliefs. I asked to judge by his writing, I would tend to think he is not a Christian based on some elements of his books such as the atheism of the elves. So if anyone has a source for this, please post it. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:45, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Raw results:

::There's a source for his being home-schooled, anyway: [http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934 A profile of Christopher Paolini], "He was home-schooled by his parents, Kenneth Paolini and Talita Hodgkinson, through an accredited correspondence course at American School, Chicago, Illinois from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Gadahn apparently was home-schooled: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/27/CALIF.TMP 'Average American boy' accused as terrorist], Adam was the oldest of four children, all of whom were home-schooled.

::A lot of Google hits on Lindh being home-schooled, but it's all blogs... Some stuff about in Google Books about Lindh "beginning life as a Christian" but turning to Islam "in high school."

:[http://knowledgehouse.info/famous.html This page] credits Lummis as begin home-schooled but does not itself cite its sources... No clear whether or not this is supposed to be a list of home-schooled ''Christians...'' FDR listed, Groton not explained... She also lists Paolini... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Sources: Adam Yahiye Gadahn: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian New Yorker] John Walker Lindh: [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org] Franklin D. Roosevelt: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm National Park Service] [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Good. Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm removing the Wikipedia references because Wikipedia itself does not consider Wikipedia articles reliable sources that can be cited in other articles.

:FDR: I'm adding a note to the FDR entry, because it seems to me to be a borderline case; I don't think private tutors and Groton would be everyone's idea of what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Lindh: I don't really know what to make of the [http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm blessedcause.org BlessedCause] reference, both because I don't understand what the site is about... but in any case, I do ''not'' see where it identifies Lindh as being ''Christian'' homeschooled. In fact if I understand the article it says there's a dispute about where he went to school, and says that according to Houghton Mifflin, he went to a public middle school in Marin County—an assertion which the site attacks. The Wikipedia article says he was homeschooled starting at age 12, but does not say he was ''Christian'' homeschooled. Wikipedia's own source for that item (wrongly formatted in the article) is a web page entitled [http://www.rickross.com/reference/islamic/islamic56.htm The Making of John Walker Lindh]. I read it as saying that he was in and out of public schools, and I do not see anything to suggest that his homeschooling resembles what is meant by "Christian homeschooling."

:Gadahn: The source you cite says, pretty clearly I think, "Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups. (At the time, nearly all such groups in the region were Christian," so I don't see any question that ''he'' was "Christian homeschooled." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:Actually, there's a problem of definition here... this article has never defined exactly what the criterion is for inclusion in the list. Gadahn would be a good example of someone who clearly did undergo "Christian homeschooling," and certainly was "homeschooled," but surely was not "a Christian" and therefore not a "homeschooled Christian." I think this could use some discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::That strikes me as what will be viewed by our critics as pretty obvious nitpicking and cherrypicking of sources. Reading the sources I provided, it's clear that all three had Christian upbringings and were homeschooled, despite their subsequent failings. As for Adam Gadahn, "''The Gadahns homeschooled Adam''" and "''Adam also joined several Christian homeschool support groups''" are clear and explicit. There's no ambiguity there; Adam Gadahn was Christian homeschooled. And the source, The New Yorker, is as good as they get. [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] If we'd rather not have in the list those who were homeschooled but may be viewed as casting it in a poor light, then let's just come out and say that and not pretend that sources say something other than they do or rely on turns of semantics to contrive justifications for an incomplete list. If our ideas are indeed that strong and compelling, then they can easily withstand being scrutinized in full light of all facts, and to act otherwise by ignoring or dismissing unfavorable facts only undermines our position and claims and invites greater scrutiny. Better to just put all the cards on the table, deal with them and let the chips fall where they may. As I've said before on my talk page, either CP is going to have an accurate and complete article on homeschooling or it's going to have to censor information from it's articles which may be considered unfavorable to its stated orientation, it can't always have both. This is as good an article as any to choose which it's going be, right here, right now. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that it is hard given this evidence not to list Gadahn. The others are less persuasive. We need to resolve whether this is a list of Christians who were homeschooled, people who were Christian homeschooled, people who are Christian who happen to have been homeschooled, or Christians who were Christian homseschooled (I think that covers the 4 obvious possibilities). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:: I commented on Harpie's talk page but now realize that the debate is here. I'll only respond here now about this issue.

:: As anyone familiar with homeschool support groups knows, simply hanging around a loosely affiliated group does not make one a "Christian homeschooler" any more than living in a neighborhood makes one a member of the majority religion. The description of Gadahn is clear that he attended Christian homeschooling groups out of necessity, not by choice. This does not make him a Christian homeschooler any more than attending Georgetown Univ. made Bill Clinton a Catholic college student. As to Lindh, there is nothing Christian about his homeschooling or his own religion, so that's not even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::: Notice that if we can agree to let the title of the actual list be "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home," that includes Mozart and excludes Lindh and Gadahn. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:07, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Frankly the only thing necessary for a run-of-the-mill homeschooler to be a Christian homeschooler is intent on the part of the parents to provide a proper Christian education and action by them to keep them out of school and deliver a superior quality education at home themselves. Reading the New Yorker article it seems clear that this was the intent of the Gadahn's for young <s>Azzam</s> Adam, no matter how terribly they failed: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian] Now arguing that Adam Gadahn was not Christian homeschooled because he didn't chose to but rather was compelled to is a red herring; many Christian homeschooled children would prefer to be playing ''Left Behind: Eternal Forces'' rather than studying math, so by that standard not many Christian homeschooled children would qualify as being Christian homeschooled. Meaning this rationale again opens us up to the lefty criticism that we exclude unfavorable facts from our articles, in other words, engaging in partisan, ideologically-motivated censorship. So if Aschlafly as the owner of this site really wants to exclude Gadahn as he seems to, we'd better set to work coming up with a reasonable-appearing justification for doing so that has at least a veneer of scholary fairness; regardless of what our motivations are, I'd think we'd want to avoid appearing to be censoring unfavorable facts in order to further our agenda. Thoughts? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 19:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Harpie, there's no "censorship" or "exclu[sion]" here. The New Yorker article simply does not support the claim that Gadahn was a Christian homeschooler. The article says that, out of necessity, Gadahn was forced to associate with homeschool "support groups" for some of his teenage years. That association not necessarily even education. Every indication is that Gadahn was not Christian then, and is not now either.

:::: Also, I might add, nearly 99% of Christian homeschoolers start early. It seems to me that both Gadahn and Lindh were latecomers to homeschooling long after their personalities and attitudes had formed. Often the latecomers are just passing through and are not influenced much by homeschooling. Contrast that with Mozart.

:::: I think Dpbsmith has proposed an ideal solution. Certainly he captures the intent of the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Kind of like a book about "Famous Irish That Don't Drink". This ''is'' a brilliant solution! Now I understand how to handle situations like this. Since we don't engage in censorship or exclusion, we just need to find the right way to frame the issue that by necessity keeps any unfavorable facts out. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 12:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I love your sarcastic enthusiasm-- it '''''really''''' strengthens your points more than talking straight could ever hope to. Even so, Ashlafly has a good point; Dpbsmith accurately capptured the intent of the list.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, they say a little bit of honey makes the medicine go down better. Look, I've been in conservative political PR now for nearly 20 years and know a little something about crafting credible, effective messages, and we'd be a lot more credible and better off in the long term were we to follow the rationale I provided above. Our goal should not be to just get out the message, but to get out a credible and compelling one, and this subject and article is just one of many that will face this same issue. If we go around trumpeting our own version of reality while ignoring the one that is shared by all we run the risk of being caricatures of our own cause and ultimately all too easily dismissed by those we hope to convince. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:34, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Expand this article==
I'm not the person to do it. I know nothing about homeschooling, sent both of my kids to public schools (and state universities), hope I've got stuff sorta-kinda right, hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but, this should be an article where there's ''lots'' of expertise available. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Let me be more emphatic. There could be a '''lot''' more factual material about homeschooling here. Resources. Books. Tips on dealing with the authorities and how to jump through the legal hoops (I assume there are still some to jump through). There's an obvious opportunity here for people to add encyclopedic material that is informed by their personal experience and expertise. Say someone wants to homeschool in New Jersey or whereever. What office do you go to? What forms do you fill out? etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think this is a good place to try to compile info about state homeschooling laws. There are other places that specialize in that. On the other hand, I agree that the article needs some serious work. Some thoughts:

Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool. I'm uncomfortable with this general statement - while in some (many) cases it is true, there are lots of active parents with kids in public or private school (especially small church schools, I'm guessing), and there are homeschooling parents who simply hire a tutor (or several) and let them have at it.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.
In fact, different families have different reasons for homeschooling, usually more than one. Religion may (or may not) be a factor; so might the quality of education. But there are other reasons - a child who is not being well-served by the public schools, a child who has a special talent or interest they wish to focus on, a family who wants to travel with dad on business, a family who lives in a very rural area far from schools (or who is sailing around the world, etc.), and so on. Various surveys have been done trying to rank the reasons, but I think we'd be better off with a list of possible reasons rather than trying to rank them. Homeschoolers are notoriously hard to count or survey.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s. 
On the other hand, *lots* of kids were educated at home in earlier centuries, and certain cultures (Native American?) may not have had "schools" at all back then. Also, the 1852 date sounds too late to me, though I could be wrong - can we get a cite there?

:I just added one. There seemed to be one there already. Another, which reads well but not quite sure of the source, is [http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/compulso.html Compulsory Education]. Apparently Horace Mann—whose name is instantly familiar to me as an "educator," but of whom I know little more—was active in getting them to do it. Massachusetts had ''public'' schools much earlier, but apparently they were not compulsory. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Also - is there a reason for listing Christian homeschoolers? Why not just list people who were educated at home (in one form or another), and then give a brief explaination of their situation - e.g. Sandra Day OConnor, educated at home when she was young as the ranch she lived on was very remote, or whatever.

A lot of thoughts - hope they are helpful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Prominent homeschooled Christians? ==

By your own definition, you have to "opt out" of formal education to be considered "homeschooled." Thus, I'm curious what system DaVinci, Washington, et al, opted out of.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's why, some time ago, I changed the title of the '''list''' to "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home." Homeschooling as we know it in the United States essentially began in the 1970s. This very interesting article on [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/SAI/homeschool/index.html Homeschoolers: Estimating Numbers and Growth] suggests that there were about a million homeschoolers circa 1998. However, in the "late 1970s and early 1980s" it says "about 10,000 to 15,000" children received their education at home. At a very rough guess, today's U. S. adult population probably includes less than 100,000 people over 21, probably less than 25,000 people over 30, and practically none over 40. Not a large population, and not enough time to become spectacularly high achievers... yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:34, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the definition part to remove the "opt out" wording - it is somewhat an attempt to address your concern above, and also an attempt to put the emphasis on what homeschoolers *do* (learn outside of school), than what they *don't do* (go to school). Not perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I think that this kind of simplistic list can be a bit meaningless. Better would be a list of people with unconventional educations or minimal formal education with a brief explanation of their circumstances. For example, you could say something like "Benjamin Franklin - had one year of formal schooling, apprenticed with his brother as a printer." (Or whatever - not sure of the details on Franklin, but you get the idea.) I also think that whether the person was Christian could be handled similarly in the brief note, rather than in the heading. In addition, I don't think *anyone* should be on the list unless there is a *citation* to a source explaining their education. See my addition of Andrew Wyeth as an example. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:The nature of the list just boggles my mind. It ignores the point raised by AmesG (which I still read into it despite the "educated at home" part) that "homeschooling" needs a formal alternative to have a meaningful definition. Also, why only Christians? I'm still boggled... [[User:Human|Human]] 22:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Drawbacks ==

I'm moving this here for discussion. As it stands, it seems to me to be pure, unsupported personal opinion:
:Homeschooling is not without its drawbacks. Studies have noted that children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts. [http://justenough.wordpress.com/2006/10/25/homeschoolers-are-indeed-weird/] This lack of legitimate socialization can produce difficulties in homsechooled childred engaging in meaningful relationships with individuals outside of their family. Additionally, while the public school playground can be seen as a barbaric atmosphere to most kids who are schooled at home, it is important to note that these exigent circumstances can produce valuable conflict prevention skills that pay dividends in all facets of life.

No doubt there are drawbacks to homeschooling. The claim that "children who are schooled at home tend to enter the collegiate and working words less socialized than their public and private schooled counterparts" is, however, referenced only to a blog entry by someone identified only as "Tammy," no other identification or credentials—''and it does not support the statement.'' The title of the entry is "Homeschoolers are indeed weird," but she does ''not'' say homeschoolers are less socialized—that's apparently [[User:Huey gunna getcha]]'s ''interpretation.'' She means "weird" in a good way: tolerant of different opinions and not afraid to express individuality.

The sentence about the "public school playground" providing "valuable conflict prevention skills" is plausible but unsupported. (By the way: are parochial school playgrounds, or non-school playgrounds very different?)

A friend once remarked that he was astonished whenever anyone made reference to "the happy sounds of children at play." "Haven't they actually paid attention when they pass a playground?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good catch! I had read that article earlier today and put removing that section on my "to do" list - you beat me to it! FWIW, when looking at homeschoolers and socialization, it's also important to consider that some children are not odd because they are homeschooled, rather, they are homeschooled because they are odd. Homeschooling can be an understanding "safe haven" for those odd kids for whom school may be "barbaric" indeed. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

i was almost kicked off my baseball team cause i was homeschooled and i was playing for the middle school. i was fortunate to be kept on. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/zysk1.html
http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf
A few of the thousands of references on Homeschooling and Socialization. As an educator and homeschool parent I have searched for years to find data that supports the claim that homeschoolers are lacking in good social skills. Having met hundreds of HS kids from all ages, I never found one that wasn't able in a wide variety of social situations. Indeed ''all'' of the HS teens I met were a delight to talk with and had no problems talking with adults on a wide range of topics, unlike thier Public or Private or Parochial schooled peers who always seem so sullen and distant around adults they don't know - and even those they do. After searching the academic journals and every other source I could look at, I found a lot of research on HS and Socialization and none that found widespread negative effects. While someone may find a kid here and there as an anecdote to say HS is isolating and promotes poor social development, I could probably come up with dozens of Public, private and parochial school kids to show the alleged deliterious effects of those types of schooling on the social skills of kids. Third Day May 8

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Cleaning up the list - putting uncited people on the talk page==
The list of homeschooled people for whom there are no citations has been here for too long, IMHO. I am moving these people here, to the discussion page. I hope this is OK with all of you. As each person's education is researched and cited, we can add them back to the list, preferably with a brief sentence explaining who they are and what form their education took (as we have now already for several people). As discussed above, I think it will be easier to describe the religious beliefs of each person individually (if needed in this context), rather than try to decide if they are generically Christian or not. Please jump in and research one of these people so we can build up this article. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: I left in Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, George Bernard Shaw, and Mark Twain, because their entries had *something* other than their names, and because they were discussed quite a bit here; however these can/should be improved by adding a brief description of who they are/were, adding a brief description of their education, and/or adding citations, preferably ones that describe their education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the George Bernard Shaw entry.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:41, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::If it were up to me I'd make this list contemporary (20th century, maybe 19th too) personalities. As it was pointed out earlier, as the homeschooling term is used today, the majority of these wouldn't count. Also, way back in the day, practically everyone was homeschooled. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Do we really need this comprehensive a list? Isn't it enough to point out a few folks who were homeschooled? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I saw that list from a source and have reinserted. I took out the ridiculous Lindh reference and other liberal bias. For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith! Frankly, this entry looked like something one would see on Wikipedia. We're not trying to be like Wikipedia here. Thanks and I'll try to find citations for the names I reinserted. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I saw that list from "a source," too, but it was just that: a list. Some homeschooling-related site. It did not say where the list came from nor did it give any sources at all. I think the list may be just bouncing around the Internet. What was ''your'' source? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::''For example, the entry did not even say that most homeschooling today is done to preserve the Christian faith!'' I'm not sure I agree with this. It is not supported by the citation given for that paragraph. In fact, religion was *third* in the list of reasons for homeschooling provided in the citation, with only 29.8% citing it as their most important reason. If you are going to assert this, it would be best to add an additional citation that backs it up. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html According to the US Census, 33% cited Religion as a motivation for HS. My citation is older than the one used in this article. Mine says 33% cite religion (not Christianity, but Religion) and the more recent survey cited by ASchafly says 29% cite Religion. Homeschoolin is becoming more and more popular and common and the fastest growing group of HSers are not citeing religion as thier motivation. This is a very interesting development. May 8 [Third Day]

:: OK, fine, I'll look for citations and add them. But I've personally taught over 120 homeschoolers, and I'd say religion is the motivation for 100 or so of them. The other reasons given, such as avoidance of drugs in school, are not even factors for the vast majority of homeschoolers.

:: Also, I will find more citations for the 61 people under the "arguably homeschooled" list and move them to the higher list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm guessing that your classes are taught from an Evangelical Christian perspective, which would make it less likely that non-Christians would sign up for them. You may also know other Christian homeschoolers from church and other social activities. In addition, Christian homeschooling groups often ask members to sign a statement of faith, effectively excluding those who aren't Christian - if one of these groups is your main contact with the homeschooling community, you will get a very skewed impression of the homeschooling population. So it makes sense that the majority of homeschoolers you know are Christian and that they homeschool "to protect the Christian faith of their children and to preserve their family values." For many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers, this is a good thing - they want to raise their children in a community of people who share their beliefs and values. But there have always been homeschoolers who are doing it for reasons of educational philosophy (wanting more of a child-led approach, or stronger academics than their local public school, or logistics (like if the family travels frequently due to Dad's job), or issues with their particular child (like Aspberger's syndrome), etc.), and this category is growing as homeschooling becomes more mainstream. (Growing Without Schooling, a secular homeschooling magazine, started publication in 1977.) In addition, some of those who homeschool for religious reasons are not Christian - they may be homeschooling to protect the Jewish faith of their children, for example. Certainly personal experience is a useful data point, and surveying homeschoolers can be quite difficult. Perhaps you can find some research to support your claim. Let's just be careful when we extrapolate based on our own experiences. We need to set a good example for our students.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your comment has some truth but lacks a sense of proportion. Parents who homeschool to keep their kids off drugs are about 1/1000th as many as parents who homeschool for Christian purposes. Your comments and edits to the entry seem to avoid recognizing the obvious: the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. There is a whole college devoted to this market (Patrick Henry College). How many colleges are there for atheistic homeschoolers? Our entries need to reflect reality, and reality includes proportions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I completely agree that keeping kids off of drugs does not, in my experience, drive a lot of parents to homeschool. (On the other hand, I do not live in the inner city - my experience might be different than families in whose neighborhoods drugs are a more serious presence.) I would still disagree, though, that the bulk of homeschoolers are doing it for Christian reasons. I know many Evangelical Christian homeschoolers who are homeschooling to preserve their children's Christian faith. However, I also know many homeschoolers of other faiths, and many who are Christian or Catholic but for whom faith is not among their reasons for homeschooling. I wrote the "reasons" paragraph based on the study I cited. I believe someone above cited another study, which also found that it was not the case that a majority of homeschoolers did so for religious reasons. I am willing to believe that my personal observations and these two studies are not representative of the homeschooling population, if we can find something to back that up. These are certianly not the only studies out there, and I think it would be good if we can find some other references to compare to them. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Arguably Homeschooled ==

How do you define homeschooled? Had some education at home? A formal school education was available but did not attend? Dropped out of school at age something? Without such a definition, many of the names on the list are frankly, silly and/or wishful thinking. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

An example of this - Mark Twain is listed on the list. From the biography of Mark Twain[http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml] it reads:
<blockquote>In 1847, when Sam was 11, his father died. Shortly thereafter he left school, having completed the fifth grade, to work as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His job was to arrange the type for each of the newspaper's stories, allowing Sam to read the news of the world while completing his work.</blockquote>
In 1847, a 5th grade education was quite sufficient for day to day life and working as an apprentice for a local newspaper was a reasonable continuation of his education. It is not homeschooling. It would probably be more useful to first put the person on the talk page and figure out if they were homeschooled and then added to the main page rather than put on the main page without refrence and then removed when they don't fit the definition (whatever that may be). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:24, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. I have found several times in the past that someone on a list of this kind was not actually educated at home. I think, if we are going for a high level of accuracy that befits an encyclopedia, we should do the research ourselves first, using the talk page to discuss. Then we should add the person to the list, and be sure to explain how each person was educated. I don't think we need to have a strict definition of homeschooling; rather, we should describe each person's experience. The result will be a list with an interesting variety of approaches to education.

I've added Mark Twain's famous quote, which is proof enough.

More generally, these lists abound on the internet. I've added a cite. No one really disputes that most or all of these people, and others too, were homeschooled. We can continue to fill in cites, but there is no need to censor this info in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." I don't think this is proof that he was homeschooled, only that he sees the difference between schooling and education, and realizes that education can come from places other than school. I'd like to know more about his education before adding him to the list. (But your sandbox, etc, so I'll leave him there.)

::I agree that lists such as these abound - but here, a higher standard exists. It is not censorship to be sure something is accurate before adding it to the article proper, and the information is available to all on the talk page while the research is being done. Students who want to use these people as examples in their work should know enough about the individual's education to be sure it is indeed an example of what they are writing about. Brief descriptions of the person's education, along with a cite or two about it, will be very useful to our readers. A list without this information, not so much. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Sam was always a good-hearted boy," his mother once remarked, "but he was a very wild and mischievous one, and, do what we would, we could never make him go to school. This used to trouble his father and me dreadfully, and we were convinced that he would never amount to as much in the world as his brothers, because he was not near so steady and sober-minded as they were." At school, he "excelled only in spelling"; outside of school he was the prototype of his own Huckleberry Finn, mischievous and prankish, playing truant whenever the opportunity afforded. "Often his father would start him off to school," his mother once said, "and in a little while would follow him to ascertain his whereabouts. There was a large stump on the way to the schoolhouse, and Sam would take his position behind that, and as his father went past would gradually circle around it in such a way as to keep out of sight. Finally, his father and the teacher both said it was of no use to try to teach Sam anything, because he was determined not to learn. But I never gave up. He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref> I'm not sure that I would consider this to be homeschooling, especially as his truancy was against his parents' wishes, though he certainly had an autodidact's view of education. I have added a fuller discription of his education to the article, so that readers can decide for themselves. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm breaking my self-imposed examtime exile to ask this question. Isn't it kind of facetious to say that most of those people were homeschooled, when no formal schooling existed? It's sort of like making a big fuss out of someone from the 1600s being a creationist - of course he was, there was no alternative! Or, like saying, "Jesus didn't believe in global warming." Well... of course not. The controversy didn't exist back then. It creates an idea of conscious choice and rejection of an idea, when there was no such thing. Example: Joan of Arc? There were no formal schools in France at the time. Put another way, could you name someone from before 1700 who was ''not'' homeschooled until college? Just seems a little facetious to me. K, back to the books.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The point is not to say that someone succeeded by rejecting public school, but that someone succeeded from homeschooling. The latter observation is true and meaningful regardless of whether public schools existed. We don't care as much '''why''' someone was homeschooled as whether it was effective.

:: Sure, I can think of people who lived before 1700 but were not homeschooled: the illiterate, of whom there were many.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sure, that's true. But the point that others are making is that the tone of the article suggests that you're suggesting that they rejected public schools, or were part of the homeschooling "movement." Would you mind if I clarified it, to better express your point, or would you like to? Perhaps something like, "Even before public schools were active, homeschooling produced many successful people worldwide. Here are some examples"? -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::A previous version had such a statement - I think something like that should be included. I would also argue that the statement "a disproportionate number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled" has not been cited or proved, and I'm not sure it's accurate or (from a historical perspective), even meaningful. (See the Harvard discussion above, though of course college admittance is not a great measure of success in life - but that's a whole 'nother conversation.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problem with your approach is that most of the people on the list did reject formal or public school, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that's true for many of the historical figures. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the list, if it actually describes the education each person had, shows that there are a wide variety of approaches to education which can be successful. This can be very useful in an age where educational standardization is being pushed - having all kids learn the same material in the same grade, etc. It's also nice for homeschooled kids to see that they are not so much an oddity as part of a long line of people who did a significant amount of learning outside of school. There's a reason you often see lists of successful minorities - it is very helpful to members of the minority group to havfe these role models, even if their lives aren't exactly parallel. I agree that it's problematic to call it "homeschooling" before, say, the last 50-100 years, but "educated at home", or "educated outside of formal schools" usually fits. At the same time, I think a long list of names without individualized information about their education is not particularly useful, and quite frankly lowers the standard of research and accuracy here. Again, we are setting an example for the students, homeschooled and not, who we expect will use this information in their work. If we expect them to present work that is well-researched and cited from credible sources which are themselves clearly well-researched, shouldn't we be doing the same?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

#In place of the list ''in the article'', how about tagging each person's biography page with [[:Category:Homeschooled]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
#Anyone educated before 1850 was probably not given "[[compulsory education]]" in the Mann or Dewey sense. In ''[[Little Women]]'' Mrs. March kept Amy home and had Jo teach her. Nothing unusual about that. We need an article on [[Primary education]] or [[History of education]] that gets into that. What proportion of children were educated, and how well? When and where? The one-room schoolroom, or a huge mega-school divided into grades by age? How about [[Educational reform]]s or "fads" like [[Whole language]] and its attack on [[phonics]], the [[New math]] and its ineffective ways of teaching [[arithmetic]]? (I'm tutoring some of my friends' kids, and it's a nightmare trying to counter the knuckleheaded strategies they mandate for doing "[[word problem]]s". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's enlightening to have the list in one easy-to-access place. It's striking. You might add your Little Women point also.
::: Arguably, the category would be easier to access than an article and would be dynamically updated as new biographies were added. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: As I said last night, the point is not that these individuals rejected public school (though many did), the point is that they achieved based on homeschooling. Why they homeschooled is a separate, and less important, issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I like the idea of a "homeschooled" category. However, I also like the list we are beginning to create here, assuming that we are careful to include a brief description of each person's education. It's very informative and inspiring to see the wide variety of ways these people were educated.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Christopher Paolini ==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], could you explain why you deleted Christopher Paolini from the list? He is a modern homeschooler, a best-selling author of a YA book series, and was clearly homeschooled. The list entry (copied below), was detailed and cited. Isn't this the kind of thing we want in the list? I haven't read his books -- perhaps there is an issue with their content I am unaware of? I'm not trying to challenge this decision, I just want to understand it. (Or perhaps it was a mistake?) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the Inheritance Trilogy (Eragon, Eldest, and a third book yet unreleased). He was home-schooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

:::Originally, it was a list of "High-achieving Christians who were educated at home" (well, actually it was "homeschooled Christians" but I proposed the title change to bypass issues about the meaning of the word "homeschooled.") This was the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&oldid=10078 original list]. Paolini was added later, and there was some issue about whether he was Christian. I don't know whether that's why Aschlafly didn't include him, or whether Aschlafly just wanted to go back to a list whose sincerity he trusts... some people had fun from time to time adding names of individuals educated at home who are better described as "notorious" than as "high-achieving." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The list could have come from [http://www.home4schoolgear.com/famoushomeschooler.html here] or [http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html here] or [http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm here] or [http://www.itwillpass.com/facts_famous_homeschoolers.shtml here]. There's probably one source for all of them but none of them credit it, much less give references for the individuals named being educated at home.

::::I've seen many of these lists over the years, almost none with explanations.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Of the few I fact-checked, some had problems. All of these Web lists, for example, list Franklin D. Roosevelt without comment, but Groton is not ''my'' idea of being educated at home. Conservapedia's article is currently adequately clear about Roosevelt's education. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes - exactly. That's why I keep going on and on about how important it is to give a brief description of each person's education - it shows the Conservapedia reader/user what form the person's education took (leaving the *reader* to decide if it counts as "homeschooling" for the reader's purposes), and in researching the brief description, we are also validating the list. I think it's just way more useful if it has been annotated in this way.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference 6==
I don't understand reference 6 in the article. What does it refer to? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think it's supposed to say "''ibid.''" I think there is a wiki markup that can be used to refer to a previously cited link, which is useful in case someone puts another footnote in between the 1st and 2nd cites, screwing up the "''ibid''" concept. But I forget how to do it. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: "id" is short for "ibid". It's supposed to refer to the preceding reference, though it possible another reference was inserted between the two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Use the "name" feature of the ref tag. Format the first reference like this, with the actual reference text:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref></nowiki>
Format subsequent references like this:
*<nowiki><ref name=cp/></nowiki>

Repeated instances of the same reference name show up in the text with the same number. In the references section itself, the entry will contain links back to all the places in the text where the named reference appeared.

Example:

'''Markup:'''

<nowiki>
Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>
</nowiki>

'''Result:'''

Some examples of wikis include Conservapedia<ref name=cp>[http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia], main page</ref>, the FoxPro wiki<ref>[http://fox.wikis.com FoxPro wiki], main page</ref>, and the CaptainWiki sailing wiki<ref>[http://captainwiki.com/ CaptainWiki], Cruising guides and sailing blogs</ref>.

Conservapedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with an emphasis on the conservative point of view.<ref name=cp/>

==Disproportionate?==
There have been two introductory sentences to our list of prominent homeschoolers:
*''Throughout history, a disproportionate{{fact}} number of achievers have benefited from being homeschooled. Here is a growing list of some of them:''
*''Throughout history, some high-profile people have been educated at home, though it should be noted that prior to the 19th century most children worldwide were educated within their family. Here is a list of some of them:''
:I think the first sentence is problematic because it makes a claim that is not supported by any kind of citation (''disproportionate''). I also think it would be hard to prove such a claim, because people's education was so varied before the twentieth century. For example, I don't mind including Mark Twain in our list of people educated outside of formal schooling, because I think he is an interesting case of someone who didn't have much of a traditional school-based education, yet went on to become a writer whose works are still in print a century later. However, I think many people of his time had only a 5th grade education, so if we were going to seriously look at the numbers, I don't think we could count him as "homeschooled". Can we work together here to come up with a sentence we can all agree on? Here's my first attempt (below) - please feel free to use it as a starting point for creating something better. Let's work on this here on the talk page until we reach consensus. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
*''Throughout history, some prominent people have received some or all of their education outside of formal schooling. (Note that prior to the 19th century, many children were educated at home.) Here is a growing list of people whose educational backgrounds were quite different than today's norm.''

==Spelling of Homeschooling==
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] - Can I get some advice - I think you're probably the best person to ask. The Williams article uses "''home-schoolers''", which is largely rejected by the homeschooling community (at least in my experience). Should it get a (sic), especially since the article here uses ''homeschoolers''? (This whole spelling thing is a pet peeve of many homeschoolers.) Oh, and nice job on the college paragraph - and a double super nice job on the Mothers Day article! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks!

:Re the "spelling thing:" it's an issue I was unaware of. What's disliked about the hyphen? For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary says:
::'''homeschool'''
::VARIANT FORMS: or home-school
::VERB: Inflected forms: home·schooled, home·school·ing, home·schools
::TRANSITIVE VERB: to instruct (a pupil, for example) in an educational program outside of established schools, especially in the home.
::INTRANSITIVE VERB: To provide educational instruction in a homeschool.
::NOUN: A school operated outside established educational institutions, especially in a home.
::OTHER FORMS: homeschooler
::[http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/H0253050.html]

:Their giving "home-school" as a "variant" would justify a ''[sic]'', so let's do that. Unfortunately there's another question: is a homeschooler a ''teacher,'' as their definition suggests, and, if so, what is the right word for a homeschooled ''pupil?''
:Anyway, sure, for now let's just put in the [sic] without explanation... until someone feels like writing a section on terminology and usage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''What's disliked about the hyphen?'' OK - not sure if I can write this well enough to make sense, but here goes. It's kind of like breastfeeding vs. breast feeding. It's the difference between a noun modified by an adjective, vs. a noun with a separate meaning. That is, breastfeeding is more than just feeding at the breast, more than just a different kind of feeding - it also provides antibodies to protect against disease, it has beneficial effects on mom's body, etc. Thus it deserves a noun all to itself. Same with homeschooling. It's more/different than just schooling that happens at home. Homeschooling includes opportunities and approaches to education that are dramatically different than what you'd find in school. Homeschooling is also often integrated into family life, so much so that it is often impossible to differentiate between the two. For example, reading a book for pleasure - for school kids, this is a "home" activity that has nothing to do with school. For homeschoolers, it is both school and not-school, wrapped up in each other (though of course both sets of kids obviously learn from reading on their own). In fact, homeschoolers talk about people doing "school at home", which generally describes trying to re-create the school model in the home without taking advantage of any of the benefits unique to homeschooling. It is not generally used in a positive context. "Home schooling" or "home-schooling" is often seen in articles written *about* homeschoolers by someone else - many spell checkers will flag "homeschooling", and many journalists will insist that their style guidelines don't allow "homeschooling". Nonetheless, almost everything written *by* homeschoolers uses the one-word form. It's one of those "call members of a minority what they want to be called" issues. (BTW - not trying to make a value judgment here - though I enjoy homeschooling, and it's been good for my kids, I think different kinds of schooling are appropriate for different kids & families - there is no "one best way" to educate children, IMHO.)
::As to who is the homeschooler, I would use "she is homeschooled" or "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooler" to refer to the student; "she is homeschooling" or "she is a homeschooling mom" or "she homeschools her kids" to refer to the mom. "She is a homeschooler" referring to the mom is less common, I think because mom can't homeschool without the kids, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect - I would prefer "she is homeschooling" or "she homeschools". "They are homeschoolers", referring to the family, is appropriate. I guess when you're referring to the students and teacher(s) collectively it's right to call them all homeschoolers, but not so much the teacher by herself. (Excuse the sexist language here!)
::Note that in some states there is language that comes from the laws in that state. In some states, homeschoolers must be enrolled in some kind of "umbrella school" which provides oversight - technically, these are private school students. In Britain, homeschoolers are "educated otherwise" (if I remember right), from a phrase in their law. In Pennsylvania law there is no such thing as homeschooling - children are "home educated" or "privately tutored" or "enrolled in a public cyber-charter school" - this last one is very controversial, as most independent homeschoolers insist that students in schools run by the government are not homeschoolers, even if they do school at home. (Got that?! Public cyber-charter schools are essentially publicly-funded internet-based correspondence schools.) The idea here is that we must be careful not to confuse, especially in the mind of the general public and the legislature, traditional self-funded homeschooling and publicly-funded school-at-home. The concern is that such confusion could lead to more governmental oversight - if government money is being spent, then accountability (and control, and standardization) soon follows, and with accountability homeschoolers tend to be forced into doing things in a very school-at-home way, which many of us feel takes away the most effective parts of homeschooling. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Got it. Well articulated. The points about publicly-funded officially-supervised schooling at home is interesting. I think these topics ought to be touched on in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:36, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Notice something ==

Notice that all the famous people home schooled are very old or even dead? Hard to imagine Stephen Hawking being home schooled.

:Homeschooling as a modern phenomenon has only been around for a short time. As most people who become famous for Great Things do so later in life, it will be a while before the results of this Grand Experiment emerge. In addition, many Christian homeschoolers aspire to paths that don't typically result in fame, such as missionary work, etc. Still, point taken - we should add some modern folks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Realizing that homeschooling is primarily an alternative to public schools. Most homeschooling parents homeschool their children because for whatever reason they are dissatisfied with the public schools. I think that it harms the credability of this website to smack the label of homeschooling on anyone who predates public schools as we now think of them; ''most'' people back then would fit the loose standard for "homeschooled" on this page. For example, Jesus is listed as "arguably homeschooled". There is really can be no evidence for this and even if ther was his education would probably not fit our idea of homeschooling today--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 16:49, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Daniel Webster - Homeschooled? Or not so much?==

I'm not convinced that Daniel Webster can be described as "homeschooled", even though he got some college-prep tutoring. Here's what I've found about his education, combined with what [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has written. FWIW, the Dartmouth site is the most extensive, with lots of useful quotes from primary sources; the Notable Names site ''("updated as weather permits")'' seems the least scholarly, but I'm not finding much contradiction. There is a heck of a lot of schooling here, at a level way beyond most people of his time. I welcome everyone's thoughts.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::*[[Daniel Webster]] (1782-1852), prominent U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, recognized as one of the greatest orators in history. As the author of the first American dictionary, he is considered the father of the English language in America. Born in Salisbury, N.H., he attended district schools<ref>Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Daniel Webster[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000238]</ref> as a young lad.<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> He attended [[Phillips-Exeter Academy]] for about nine months in 1794. <ref>Notable Names Database Weblog: Daniel Webster[http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000024373/]</ref> Webster was then tutored by the Rev. Samuel Wood to prepare him to pass the rigorous oral exam required for entrance to Dartmouth.<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> In August of 1797<ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801: The Road to Dartmouth[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref>, at the age of 16,<ref>Daniel Webster And the War on the Second Bank of the United States, By Paul J. Rastatter[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/webster.htm]</ref> he enrolled in Dartmouth College, from which he graduated in 1801. <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/exhibit.html]</ref>

: Why doesn't this prove that Daniel Webster was homeschooled for high school? In addition, the passing reference about attending "district school" before that would not have amounted to much in the 1700s, particularly in New Hampshire. Those schools were not full-time school like today, and he would likely have learned the basics at home. The other links to Webster don't even mention the "district schools."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::I've been a bit confused about when he was at Exeter - looking into it further, according to a biography he wrote in 1829, he entered in May, 1796 and he left in Jan 1797.<ref>OLD STURBRIDGE VILLAGE - Online Resource Library: Daniel Webster, Autobiography, 1829[https://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?Action=View&DocID=1077]</ref> He was with Rev. Woods for no more than 7 months - he started in Feb 1797 and by Aug 1797 he had entered Dartmouth. As to the district schools, it sounds like his family went to great lengths to have him attend them. From the same source: ''My father seemed to have no higher object in the world, than to educate his children, to the full extent of his very limited ability. No means were within his reach, generally speaking but the small town schools. These were kept by teachers, sufficiently indifferent, in the several neighborhoods of the township, each a small part of the year. To these I was sent, with the other children. When the school was in our neighborhood, it was easy to attend; when it removed to a more distant district* I followed it, still living at home…When it removed still further, my father sometimes boarded me out*, in a neighboring family, so that I could still be in the school.'' I don't think we can ignore this, even if he, like many "youngest kids", learned to read from his mother or siblings at home. I can see your point, but I think it's a stretch to include him. Let's hear what other folks think.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

: The Phillips-Exeter dates look wrong. People don't start high school in May at age 17. Nor would it make sense for Rev. Woods to tutor Webster for only a few months. There is at least a three year gap there to prepare for college, as one would expect, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::He would have been about 14 (1796 minus 1782), which jives with a couple of other sources which mention his age but not the year. The 1794 date comes from the Notable Names Database Weblog article, which doesn't look particularly scholarly and includes no citations. We could work it out more accurately if we looked up his birthday. [Why don't I do that! He was born January 18, 1782, which would make him 14 in May of 1796 when he entered Exeter (according to the autobiography quote), and 15 (give or take a few days) when he left. He would have started with Rev. Wood at 15, and been almost 16 (well, 15 1/2) by the time he began Dartmouth in Aug 1797.] I agree that May sounds like an odd time to start school, but I believe the British system, on which Phillips-Exeter may have been modeled, has different terms (semesters) than we are used to. 14 is the right age for high school today, and I do believe Dartmouth as to the dates he was there. Perhaps we can find more information to verify or refute the Exeter dates. Don't forget that Rev. Woods had planned to have Webster for longer: ''Mr. Wood put me upon Virgil and Tully; and I conceived a pleasure in the study of them, especially the latter, which rendered application no longer a task... In the spring I began the Greek grammar, and at midsummer Mr. Wood said to me: "I expected to keep you till next year, but I am tired of you, and I shall put you into college next month.'' <ref>Dartmouth: Daniel Webster: Class of 1801:
Scholarly Pursuits[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/1801/scholar.html]</ref> He also said that he was ''miserably prepared, both in Latin and Greek'', which is not surprising if he only studied for a few months! (Same source)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, here we go. Phillips Exeter themselves put the date as May 14, 1796, age 14. <ref>Phillips Exeter Academy: Academy Chronology[http://www.exeter.edu/libraries/4513_4622.aspx]</ref>--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Wright Brothers - Homeschooled? Or not?==
The article says:
:::*[[The Wright Brothers|Orville and Wilbur Wright]], inventors of the airplane. They did attend some school, but also learned at home from their father, who was a conservative minister, and their mother, who was the top mathematician in her college class.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/family.htm</ref> Neither Wright Brother earned a high school diploma, let alone college, and Orville Wright left high school after his junior year.<ref>http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/Just%20the%20Facts/trivia.htm</ref>
:Looking at the sources given, I saw that both brothers went to school, that Wilbur earned a high school diploma (but never picked up his certificate), and Orville left after 11th grade. While their parents taught them some interesting things (as do all good parents), I didn't see anything that implied that this was ever in lieu of going to school. While I'd love to claim these two as "one of us" (homeschoolers, that is), the sources given don't seem to give me any grounds to do so. Am I missing something? I'd like us to have a strong, well-researched list of people with interesting educational backgrounds. I welcome everyone's thoughts. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:22, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Update==
I have cleaned up the two lists of homeschoolers based on the discussions above. I have removed the Wright Brothers and Daniel Webster - if further research and discussion in the sections above shows them to be homeschoolers, we can add them back in. I have also moved two people from the first list to the second, because they didn't have any explanation of their education or any references. Because of our experience with the Wrights and Webster, we must view anyone on a "Famous Homeschooler" list we find on the internet with skepticism - they ''may'' have been homeschooled, but we should be careful to document their actual education before adding them to the first list. It would probably to be a good idea to change the paragraph introducing the second list to make it clear that these people have not been researched or verified as homeschoolers. By the way, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article - I think it is shaping up nicely!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Joan of Arc ==
I've been researching Joan of Arc's education, and I'm not sure it qualifies as homeschooling, at least as we think of homeschooling today. She was taught religion and domestic skills by her mother, as are most girls, then and now. She could not read or write, and I found nothing about her going to school or being taught any academic skills. So while (like most children of her time) she did not go to school, and while I have great respect for traditional women's skills and the way they have been passed from mother to daughter for centuries (regardless of whether the daughters also went to school or not), I don't think I would consider this to be "homeschooling" - it is, IMHO, "mothering" or "raising your daughter" - the kinds of things that most mothers do for their daughters. Below are a few quotes. Thoughts? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:''As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. Joan would later say, "As for spinning and sewing, I fear no woman in Rouen." And again, "It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."''<ref>A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio]</ref>

:''She never learned to read or write but was skilled in sewing and spinning...''<ref>New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm]</ref>

:''"It was from my mother that I learned the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Credo", and "to sew linen fabrics and to spin wool, and when it comes to spinning and sewing I fear no woman..."''<ref>Biography of Joan of Arc[http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html]</ref>

That is homeschooling. There is no requirement that homeschooling include a particular curriculum. Joan of Arc should be included. It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children. I'll revert the deletion of her name, even using your cites above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

::''It is not true that most mothers teach religion, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Credo and skills to their public-schooled children.'' I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean that most mothers don't teach religion at all? Or that most mothers of public-schooled children don't? I'm talking here of religious families. If those mothers (and of course fathers) don't teach their children religion, who does? I think that, in a devout home, most kids learn the Lord's Prayer etc. (or whatever prayers are appropriate for their religion) from their mother or their father - hearing their parents say them daily, during mealtime and bedtime prayers, etc. They also hear it from other family members and in church. It's woven into the fabric of their family life. I think that's even more the case in Joan of Arc's time. In a devout home, children learn these things even before they are of school age. In addition, girls throughout history learned spinning and sewing because that was their job in the family - the same way children today learn to load the dishwasher or to mow the lawn. Is it homeschooling? I can see both sides of it, and if you feel strongly that Joan of Arc should be included, then that's OK with me. But in terms of our list of famous homeschoolers, I don't think it makes sense to individually list all those people from earlier times who learned religion and basic life skills (and maybe even a trade) from their parents and never even had the opportunity to go to school. Perhaps it would be best to address it by writing a paragraph explaining that learning by your parents' side was the norm for the vast majority of people in those days - going to school was only for the elite. We could rename our list "Prominent people of the Modern Era who were educated at home" - well, "of the modern era" isn't great, but I'm sure we could think of something better - "Of the last 350 years" perhaps. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:29, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Joan of Arc was homeschooled. This isn't complex. No, most parents of public-schooled children do NOT teach their children the things that Joan of Arc learned at home. Were most children who went on to achievement homeschooled at the time of Joan of Arc? I don't know, but that fact does not affect whether Joan of Arc was homeschooled. She was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, by this logic you could include every human being prior to about 1700, and even most humans after 1700. In Joan of Arc's time, there were no public primary schools, therefore nearly everyone was educated by their parents. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 14:42, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, that doesn't follow. Not everyone who failed to attend a [[public school]] was homeschooled. Ever heard of [[Plato's Academy]]? That was a few years before 1700.

:: The point of this entry is not to criticize [[public schools]] anyway. But if you want to insert a ''supported'' statement that [[public schools]] did not exist before 1700, please go ahead and do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Plato's academy was the equivalent of secondary and post secondary education, not primary education. Children learned to read and write from their parents, and so it follows that if their parents couldn't read or write, then the children almost certainly wouldn't be able to either.

:::Even into Joan of Arc's time, formal education was the province of the noble classes and what little group schooling existed was conducted by the church, not the state. Since most people were not members of a noble family, they would not have been educated in a group setting, but instead instructed by their parents. It wasn't until the advent of state sponsored public schooling that formal education became more widespread.

:::I realize that your goal is to present homeschooling as superior to public schooling, and you think that by presenting these towering giants of history as homeschooled that it helps your case, but the truth is that what you call homeschooling was the de facto method of learning for the vast majority of humanity the world over, and the handful of great individuals that arose from it are a measure of statistics, not of the superiority of the home-school. Certainly, if you're the child of a Bill Gates or a Richard Feynman you might get more at the foot of your parent than in an average public school, but if you're the son of Joe Ditchdigger or Jane Grocery Bagger then you're likely better off in a public school. A parent who is not well educated themselves is unlikely to be able to instruct their children to become better educated than they are. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 15:56, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== George Washington Carver ==
Yet again, when researching someone on the "Arguably Homeschooled" list, I've come up with little support for the argument. George Washington Carver, born a slave, didn't go to school until age 10, but I'm not sure I would call his education before this "homeschooling". More accurately, his education was delayed until he could attend school. The lack of schooling is '''not''' the same thing as homeschooling. What do you all think? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:26, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''Carver was born a slave near Diamond, Missouri, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Around age ten he left the farm where he was born and traveled through the Midwest doing odd jobs to support his education. Carver studied constantly and attended schools wherever possible, finally graduating from high school in Minneapolis, Kansas, in 1885. That same year he passed the entrance examination at Highland College in northeastern Kansas. But when school officials learned he was black, he was prevented from attending. In 1891 Carver was admitted to the Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanical Arts (now Iowa State University) in Ames. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1894, becoming the first black to graduate from the college. After graduation, Carver was appointed to the faculty as an assistant botanist. While teaching, he pursued his master’s degree, studying fungus diseases and classification of plants. In 1896 he received his master’s degree. That year, at the invitation of American educator Booker T. Washington, Carver became the director of agricultural research at Tuskegee Institute, where he remained for the rest of his life.''<ref>MSN Encarta Encyclopedia - George Washington Carver article[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574196/Carver_George_Washington.html]</ref>
:''He began his formal education at the age of twelve, which required him to leave the home of his adopted parents. Schools segregated by race at that time with no school available for black students near Carver's home. He moved to Newton County in southwest Missouri, where he worked as a farm hand and studied in a one-room schoolhouse. He went on to attend Minneapolis High School in Kansas. College entrance was a struggle, again because of racial barriers. At the age of thirty, Carver gained acceptance to Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa, where he was the first black student. Carver had to study piano and art and the college did not offer science classes. Intent on a science career, he later transferred to Iowa Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) in 1891, where he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in 1894 and a Master of Science degree in bacterial botany and agriculture in 1897.'' <ref>George Washington Carver, By Mary Bellis[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa041897.htm]</ref>

==Leonardo da Vinci==
Here is another from the Arguably Homeschooled list for whom I've been able to find little evidence of homeschooling. Perhaps further searching will turn up more. Until then, I suggest we take da Vinci off the list. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:''In Vinci Leonardo went to school. Vasari told that teachers of Leonardo da Vinci were despaired about all the questions and doubts of Leonardo. Leonardo learned at school to write, to read and to calculate. Also he was taught in geometry and Latin. Later Leonardo tried to improve his knowledge in Latin, because he thought that he didn't learn enough at school in Latin. Perhaps this is the reason why Leonardo did his notes in Italian. Leonardo lived in Vinci until 1466. With the age of 14 Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.''<ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

==Our "Arguably Homeschooled" list is proving to be very inaccurate.==
While I understand the logic of having the list in the article, I am finding so many people on the list to have educational backgrounds that I would not consider to be homeschooling that I think we need to reconsider. I suggest we move the list back to the talk page - the level of error is just too high to consider this list credible. Once researched, people who are shown to actually have been educated at home can be put on the "Prominent people who were educated at home" list, along with an explanation of their education and citations showing the facts. Thoughts? Opinions? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:00, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Some very basic fact checking shows that a number of the people on the list were clearly not homeschooled. Both were added by Mr Schlafly. Andy, are you just pulling these names from your nether regions, or did you bother to check if what you were posting was actually accurate? I notice you've removed some of my additions, who were certainly homeschooled since they lived in countries without formal education systems. Why was this done, Andy? Because they weren't Christian? I thought Non Christian Conservatives were welcome here... that's what your front page says. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 22:11, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Famous Dropouts vs. Famous Homeschoolers==
This reference <ref> Education Reform.net - List of Successful Dropouts [http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm]</ref>, currently in the Arguably Homeschooled section, is a list of dropouts, not a list of homeschoolers. While some overlap is possible, and a few people on the list are indeed arguably homeschooled, most are not. I do not think we should be equating dropouts with homeschoolers. I think we should keep the reference here on the talk page, to get ideas for adding to the list of Prominent People who were Educated at Home. I think it may be a good idea to remove it from the Arguably Homeschooled section. Thoughts? Input?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Henri Poincaré==
I am a bit confused about Poincare's education. While I have found several references stating that his mother tutored him, it's unclear whether this was just during his illness with diphtheria. It's unclear when he was ill, or how long he was ill. He entered school at age 8 and stayed there 11 years, going on to higher education after that. Most of the references I found seem to rely on (or copy) the entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is not clear. Personally, I'm not comfortable calling him "homeschooled" without further clarification of his education. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:47, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:''Henri was "... ambidextrous and was nearsighted; during his childhood he had poor muscular coordination and was seriously ill for a time with diphtheria. He received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school." In 1862 [when he would have been about 8] Henri entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honour). He spent eleven years at the Lycée and during this time he proved to be one of the top students in every topic he studied. Henri was described by his mathematics teacher as a "monster of mathematics" and he won first prizes in the concours général, a competition between the top pupils from all the Lycées across France. Poincaré entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. He was well ahead of all the other students in mathematics but, perhaps not surprisingly given his poor coordination, performed no better than average in physical exercise and in art. Music was another of his interests but, although he enjoyed listening to it, his attempts to learn the piano while he was at the École Polytechnique were not successful. Poincaré read widely, beginning with popular science writings and progressing to more advanced texts. His memory was remarkable and he retained much from all the texts he read but not in the manner of learning by rote, rather by linking the ideas he was assimilating particularly in a visual way. His ability to visualise what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see the symbols properly that his lecturers were writing on the blackboard. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines.''<ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

:: It is completely clear that he was homeschooled at least until age 8. The date of entry in the Lycee high school seems too early, and it seems unlikely he spent 11 years in high school. Regardless, he was homeschooled in learning the fundamentals of reading and math, and likely learned far more from his "gifted" mother.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== Citation needed ==
''Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled...''
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], much as I, as a homeschooling mom, would love to believe this, we simply cannot state it in the article without backing it up with a citation. Everything we post here must be true and verifiable. We must always cite and give credit to our sources. We must be careful not to post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry like this. These are Conservapedia's rules, not mine, and they are good ones. Let's show our students that we are serious about the rules by leading by example - we must stick to the rules if we expect others to do so. Thus, we need a credible citation for this statement. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:59, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

: That sentence introduces the paragraph and list of examples that support it, with citations. 4 out of the top 4 modern mathematicians were homeschooled. That's 100% of the smartest group of achievers. The person considered the greatest president (Abraham Lincoln) was homeschooled. That's 100% of the top. The greatest female military leader was homeschooled. That's 100%. It's not just one citation that backs up the sentence, it is many citations and examples.

: Hsmom, your repeated objections, like your objection above to the undisputed fact that Joan of Arc was homeschooled, are getting tiresome. Add some content to the entry rather than object to the facts, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Joan of Arc ==

Is it really accurate to say that Joan of arc was "homeschooled" in the sense of the word that this article is about. Not a lot of kids - and even fewer girls - of the lower classes got much schooling of ANY type during the Middle Ages. Most, if not all of children's education, what precious little of it there was for French peasants, would have been at home. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

: OK, so Joan of Arc and many others were homeschooled in her class and time period. That doesn't detract from the point: Joan of Arc was homeschooled and then became one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

: Your criticism has been raised by others in the past, all of whom view this entry as tit-for-tat, homeschooling versus alternatives. But that's not what this entry is about. This entry simply proves that homeschooling has been extraordinarily successful in its own right, regardless of alternatives. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Fair Inclusion ==

I've been trying to add William Bonney (Billy the Kid) and John Wesley Hardin, two famous American outlaws, and they keep getting deleted. I don't understand why. Both are certainly prominent, and both are homeschooled at least to the same extent as inclusions like Lincoln, Twain, and Joan of Arc. Obviously they don't paint a rosy picture of homeschooling, but doesn't blocking their entry present only one side of the argument (the pro-homeschooling side)?

: Provide some evidence for your claims, as required by our [[rules]]. Homeschooled means schooled at home, not running away from home. Obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

::Don't be a jerk, dude. This site lists "prominent" home-schooled individuals, not all of them. Also, this is not your site. Why do you think it should play by your rules?

:: Many of the people on this list were not obviously schooled at home. Twain is a clear example. Lincoln read at home but was not "schooled" by anyone, and people like the Roosevelts and Shaw studied with professional tutors, clearly not an analogy for the parent-lead homeschooling of today. Bonney's school experience is essentially a direct parallel of Twain's, and Hardin was taught by his father, just like Mozart. If your complaint is truly a source issue, I'm happy to go dig up a biography or two, but short of that I can see no reason for not including these two. For most of history people didn't have anything like modern access to public schools, which means that for most of history bad people got their education in pretty much the same way as people like Joan of Arc. Just trying to be fair here.

::: So you're saying that Lincoln schooled himself at home??? Could be ... but that's still homeschooled. Private tutors is also homeschooling, as many of us homeschoolers can attest. You seem to be saying that Hardin and Mozart were taught by their fathers. That's not homeschooling? Of course it is.

::: I'm open to unbiased improvements to the article. I don't know the details of Twain, for example. I do know that 5 out of the top 5 mathematicians post-Napoleon were homeschooled, and there are few if any errors on this list. If you can make unbiased improvements by adding information, please do. If you can't believe the list, then perhaps you want to open your mind a bit first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for rollback ==

Don't insert {{fact}} when the statement is supported the sentences that follow it. When in doubt, use this page to express your opinion rather than senseless inclusion of multiple {{fact}}--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, since you mention it, I was wondering why you removed the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> from the statement saying Ansel Adams is the best photographer of the twentieth century. It's certainly a very bold and opinionated statement (maybe someone is more a fan of [[Alfred Stieglitz]]) and I figured it needed backing up.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:22, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The next sentence supports the statement. Open your mind a bit, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, perhaps we can reach a compromise. Instead of adding a {{fact}}, why don't we just add the word 'arguably' to the sentence. That way, we're both happy. Eh?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:39, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: My friend, open your mind instead. The quote proves that Ansel Adams was homeschooled. All that is needed is a cite for the quote. The list of the others is also extremely well supported. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh ho, it seems we have found the root of our contention. You see, I'm not saying that Ansel Adams wasn't homeschooling. I don't doubt that he was. I'm just saying that the statement that he was the 20th century's 'finest artist' is not a fact (in the same way that "Bananas are the tastiest fruit" is not a fact), and should be changed to show it's opinion. It's semantics, I know, but that's how I roll, with mild [[OCD]].--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 00:55, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Oh how petty. Your own quote is wrong ("finest artist") and yet you're going to quibble about Conservapedia's statement here???? Everyone knows that Ansel Adams was the "the finest photographer of the 20th century." Nitpick something else, please. Or improve some entries here first and then return with more experience. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Alright, whatever. Anyway, I found the site the actual quote is from. I think I cited it right, but, you know, I'm inexperienced about the matter.--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 01:18, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thanks much. I apologize for overreacting a bit. Let's improve this fascinating entry further. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== What's with the [sic]? ==
Referring to the quote from the Williams College admissions officer... Is the [sic] there because of the possibly-incorrect dash in home-schoolers? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== C.S. Lewis ==

Assuming that homeschooling refers to the primary method of schooling that a child received, Lewis' homeschooling was only through age 10. Under those circumstances, would it be more appropriate to remove him from this list? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

: Being homeschooled through age 10 is significant, as that teaches the reading, math and thinking skills used the rest of one's life. The education Lewis received from his homeschooling was probably almost equivalent to a high school education today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Related article request ==

Please create the following ancillary articles and incorporate some of the following within the main article:

*[[Homeschooling Resources]]
*[[Christian Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Materials]]
*[[Online Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Programs]]
*[[Homeschooling Information]]
*[[Homeschooling Help]]
*[[Homeschooling Supplies]]
*[[Homeschooling Curriculums]]
*[[Classical Homeschooling]]
*[[Homeschooling Software]]
*[[Homeschooling and Math]]
*[[School Violence]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Leonardo da Vinci homeschooled? ==

Could somebody explain how Leonardo da Vinci was homeschooled? Here is his current entry in the list of "Prominent people who were educated at home":
{{cquote|Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio.}}
Right now, this entry sticks out, so I'd be happy if somebody could clarify... --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

== Churchill ==

Debate whether Churchill was homeschooled here. Numerous internet discussions say he was, see, e.g., [http://forums.families.com/social-development-vs-homeschooling,t160]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Churchill attended Brunswick House Preparatory School 1884-88; before that he had had attended the school run by a flagellant and sadist and described in 'My Early Life', and afterwards he was sent to Harrow. On Brunswick House: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FnM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=winston+churchill+preparatory+school&source=web&ots=FAKUcUFmFa&sig=FdVrP1JpErKuYWm1uKmyLug3G5w&hl=en

[[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:06, 29 February 2008 (EST)

: Your analysis lacks dates and ages, and seems obsessed with branding someone a "sadist". If the school was so sadistic then that only reinforces the likelihood of the claim that Churchill was not always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 29 February 2008 (EST)

My comment states clearly that he attended Brunswick House 1884-1888, and that he was born in 1874 is common knowledge, even to those of us suffering under the burden of having attended schools. The sadistic school, as I stated clearly, was attended before Brunswick House. It was a boarding school, so attendance was not optional. Do try and keep up. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:16, 29 February 2008 (EST)

The following comes from the entry on Churchill in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I trust it answers any remaining questions you might have, and meets your threshold of sadistic behaviour. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:24, 29 February 2008 (EST)

''At eight he was sent to a boarding-school at Ascot where the headmaster took a pleasure in flogging the boys until their bottoms ran with blood. Winston performed well in some subjects but his reports often referred to his unruly behaviour. According to one authority, he was birched for stealing sugar from the pantry and retaliated by kicking the headmaster's straw hat to pieces (Churchill and Gilbert, 1.53). When he fell ill his parents transferred him to a school at Brighton where he was much happier but came bottom of the class for conduct.''

: This provides no detail on Churchill's schooling between ages 8 and 14, or prior to age 8. It reads like an entry in a gossip magazine as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:According to the biography at [http://712educators.about.com/cs/biographies/p/churchill.htm Educators.About.com] he attended private school from age 7. The article on his education from the [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=630 Winston Churchill center] states that his first school was St. George’s (which he mistakenly calls St. James’s in his autobiography) and where he was beaten. Following that he attended a school at Hove, near Brighton before entering Harrow at age 14. [[User:Spencer|Spencer]] 12:17, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: The Winston Churchill center does not say that the schooling was contiguous, and the claim that he was beaten suggests it may not have been. Moreover, if he was already 7 when he started, then he had probably been homeschooled to learn how to read. There are many claims on the internet, with limited details, that Churchill was homeschooled during some of these periods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::"There are many claims on the internet, with limited details" v. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography...Hmmmmmm....Do you often believe claims on the internet with limited details? Because I've seen a claim, on the Internets, that says 9/11 was an inside job. And it's got limited details! Can I post it on CP? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:38, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Obama on rifles

Jdellaro — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:18:22 GMT

Jdellaro:

{{merge|Barack Obama}}
In a CNN Democratic primary debate in Austin, Texas, [[Barack Obama]] claimed that poor presidential leadership on [[President Bush]]'s part was resulting in shortages of weapons for US troops, who had to use captured Taliban weapons to supply the shortfall.

<blockquote>
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq," Obama told CNN moderator Campbell Brown.

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," he added.
</blockquote>

ABC News claims to have verified Obama’s story by speaking to the Army captain who was his actual source. <ref>[http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=3510 Obama Criticizes US Troops' Supplies of Arms and Ammunition] </ref>

But General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, disputed Obama's conclusions:

<blockquote>
Casey said he had "no reason to doubt what it is the captain says," (that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons). But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

</blockquote>

The officer did not mention any shortage of rifles.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Angelina Jolie

Jdellaro — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:37:55 GMT

Jdellaro: Added Goodwill Ambassador according to front page headline

'''Angelina Jolie''' (born June 4, 1975) is an [[United States of America|American]] [[actor|actress]] and United Nations Goodwill Ambassador who has appeared in many movies, including:

* A Mighty Heart (2007)
* The Good Shepherd (2006)
* Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2007)
* Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
* Girl, Interrupted (1999)

One of her best known roles was as Lara Croft in the film "Tomb Raider"

In 1999 she won 4 awards for her role in "Girl, Interrupted", including an [[Academy Award]] for best supporting actress.

In 2001 Angelina became a Goodwill Ambassador for the [[United Nations]] High Commission for Refugees.

She was born Angelina Jolie Voight, to actor [[Jon Voight]] and actress Marcheline Bertrand. Her father also appeared in the movie Tomb Raider with her.

Angelina was married twice: British actor Jonny Lee Miller, from March 1996 to February 1999, and to actor Billy Bob Thornton, from May 2000 to May 2003.

She currently lives with actor [[Brad Pitt]], they have one biological child together, daughter Shiloh Jolie-Pitt (born May 27, 2006), and 3 adopted children: sons Maddox and Pax, and daughter Zahara Jolie-Pitt.

==References==

* http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001401/ - movie site
* http://celebrities.adoption.com/famous/angelina-jolie.html -celebrity adoption
* http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800019275/awards - awards
* http://www.un.org/works/goingon/refugees/angelina_story.html -United Nations work

{{DEFAULTSORT: Jolie, Angelina}}

[[Category:Actors]]

Obama on rifles

Jdellaro — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:40:52 GMT

Jdellaro: Fleshed out the story with references to debate and confirmation by General Casey

In a CNN Democratic primary debate in Austin, Texas, [[Barack Obama]] claimed that poor presidential leadership on [[President Bush]]'s part was resulting in shortages of weapons for US troops, who had to use captured Taliban weapons to supply the shortfall.

<blockquote>
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq," Obama told CNN moderator Campbell Brown.

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," he added.
</blockquote>

ABC News "confirmed" this claim.
<ref>ABC News claims to have verified Obama’s story by speaking to the Army captain who was his actual source. [http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=3510 Obama Criticizes US Troops' Supplies of Arms and Ammunition] </ref>

General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, confirmed the story, while making the same mistake regarding rank, during testimony in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee:

<blockquote>
Casey said he had "no reason to doubt what it is the captain says."
</blockquote>

Obama's statement contains more than one error.

The "captain" quoted was actually a [[lieutenant]] at the time of deployment. Captains lead companies, not [[platoon]]s. Perhaps he used the man's current rank to make his story sound more credible. It would have been more accurate to say,

:I heard about an army lieutenant whose platoon was deployed to Afghanistan with only 24 men, should have been 39. (That is true, accurate, and not misleading in the slightest)

The officer did not mention any shortage of rifles.

==References==

Obama on rifles

Jdellaro — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:39:37 GMT

Jdellaro: Fleshed out the story with references to debate and confirmation by General Casey

In a CNN Democratic primary debate in Austin, Texas, [[Barack Obama]] claimed that poor presidential leadership on [[President Bush]]'s part was resulting in shortages of weapons for US troops, who had to use captured Taliban weapons to supply the shortfall.

<blockquote>
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq," Obama told CNN moderator Campbell Brown.

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," he added.
</blockquote>

ABC News "confirmed" this claim.
<ref>ABC News claims to have verified Obama’s story by speaking to the Army captain who was his actual source. [http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=3510 Obama Criticizes US Troops' Supplies of Arms and Ammunition] </ref>

Obama's statement contains more than one error.

The "captain" quoted was actually a [[lieutenant]] at the time of deployment. Captains lead companies, not [[platoon]]s. Perhaps he used the man's current rank to make his story sound more credible. It would have been more accurate to say,

:I heard about an army lieutenant whose platoon was deployed to Afghanistan with only 24 men, should have been 39. (That is true, accurate, and not misleading in the slightest)

General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, confirmed the story, while making the same mistake regarding rank, during testimony in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee:

<blockquote>
Casey said he had "no reason to doubt what it is the captain says."
</blockquote>

The officer did not mention any shortage of rifles.

==References==

Talk:Liberal Style

Jdellaro — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:38:19 GMT

Jdellaro:

Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers to point #28. So either Obama is not liberal, or Point #28 should be modified.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Good point, but Obama is not a ''fellow'' liberal with respect to Hillary. He is an "adversary" to Hillary. Any suggestions to make more precise, while keeping it concise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Instead of using "Never", perhaps use the word "rarely". --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Style

Jdellaro — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:59:21 GMT

Jdellaro: New page: Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers t...

Xenophobia

Jdellaro — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:32:18 GMT

Jdellaro: More examples of Xenophobia

'''Xenophobia''', from the [[Greek]] ξένος (xénos, foreign) + φόβος (phobos, fear). A fear of that which is inherently ''other''. Xenophobia is inherent in [[human]] history and human nature to some degree.<ref>Edward Said, "Orientalism."</ref> Examples of xenophobia are evident in common [[American]] culture, such as the fear of the influx of [[Mexican]] culture in the border states, the drive to "Americanize" Native Americans in the 1800's, and the call for African Americans to "assimilate".

Technically, xenophobia is not [[racism]]; racism is however a manifestation of xenophobia.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:phobias]]

Xenophobia

Jdellaro — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:30:56 GMT

Jdellaro: "Influx of Mexican culture" is not "understandable" merely an example

'''Xenophobia''', from the [[Greek]] ξένος (xénos, foreign) + φόβος (phobos, fear). A fear of that which is inherently ''other''. Xenophobia is inherent in [[human]] history and human nature to some degree.<ref>Edward Said, "Orientalism."</ref> Examples of xenophobia are evident in common [[American]] culture, such as the fear of the influx of [[Mexican]] culture in the border states.

Technically, xenophobia is not [[racism]]; racism is however a manifestation of xenophobia.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:phobias]]

Talk:George W. Bush

Jdellaro — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:22:44 GMT

Jdellaro: Poll #'s Are Wrong

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

You neglected to mention that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a half-million votes. Your refusal to address it is just plain sad. Jesus hates liars.

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

== Comment ==

Bush had an alcohol problem until 1986, as he has openly admitted in the past. The severity of this problem remains open to doubt. Comment by User: Darkmind1970 (08:23, 4 January 2008)

== Threats ==

We can't have a threats section. Otherwise, every liberal/communist would be on it!

== Economic Policy ==

To write that Bush worked with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage is a little disingenuous. The minimum wage increase was a platform of the 2006 Democrats. While Bush didn't specifically issue a veto threat, as per the article referenced, the White House wanted tax breaks for small businesses to offset the cost to those businesses. I think the current revision is a better recount of the minimum wage increase. It credits both Democrats, as it was their issue, as well as Bush, who signed the provision after he got what he wanted in the bill.

I'm not trying to vandalize, merely provide more context to the actions.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, "worked with" is the operative phrase. In general, Republicans oppose increases in the [[minimum wage]], on the grounds that it hurts [[inner city]] youth - making it harder for them to get [[entry-level]] jobs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Poll #'s Are Wrong ==

His most recent poll rating, according to ARG on 2/20/08, is 19%! http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Conservapedia:Contest5

Jdellaro — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:40:15 GMT

Jdellaro:

This contest focuses on insights and quality, not quantity. The point system (see below) has been adjusted accordingly.

Like many sports contests, one side "kicks off" by starting an entry. The other side must then work with that entry, by improving it and adding links. The first team then must work within those links, and so on until time elapses. One team cannot intentionally fill in a link created by itself: it must try to fill in links created by the other team. (Inadvertent mistakes about who created the link will still count towards points.)

In other words, like in basketball or football or soccer, a player can only "run with the ball" if it is intercepted or otherwise obtained from the other side.

Special points are awarded to quality improvements to Conservapedia entries that rank high in search engines, such as traditional Conservapedia features like [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] or [[faith]] or [[liberal]], as well as the [[Conservapedia terms]].

===Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here===
*<s>[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)</s>
*<s>[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 00:08, 17 February 2008 (EST)</s>
*<s>[[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 08:29, 17 February 2008 (EST)</s>
*<s>[[User:Joaquín Martínez]]</s>
*<s>[[User:Iduan]]</s>
*[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:37, 17 February 2008 (EST) (assuming another participant to allow for equal teams - otherwise, I don't mind)

===Teams===
{|width="75%" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|Team 1
!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|Team 2
|-
!width="25%"|Captain
|width="25%"|[[User:Fox|Fox]]
!width="25%"|Captain
|width="25%"|[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
|-
!colspan="2"|Members
!colspan="2"|Members
|-
|colspan="2"|
#[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]
#[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

|colspan="2"|
#[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquin]]
#[[User:Iduan|Iduan]]

|}

==Kickoff Entries (each player may add their kickoff entry to this list)==

*[[Deconstruction]]
*[[Roberta McCain]]
*[[Johns Hopkins University]]
*[[Kamakura]]
*[[Holy Days]]

==Points==

===New entry===

Masterpiece: '''100 points'''
*''Definition'': At the end of the contest each team (if they want to) will nominate their 2-3 best entries, and then the judges will award 100 points to one or more "masterpieces".

Quality New Entry: '''20 points'''
*''Definition'':A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, an emboldened subject, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category, and is not entirely copied.

Ordinary New Entry or Insight: '''12 points'''
*''Definition'': An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry, and is not entirely copied.

Short New Entry: '''6 points'''
*''Definition'': A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference, and is not entirely copied.

Copied Entries That Add Little Value: '''3 point'''
*''Definition'': A entry copied from a public domain source such as .gov site - you MUST link to other articles and the article can not be of trivial nature (i.e. non-encyclopedic, non-educational or non-historical)

*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* New Entries will receive only half-credit.

===Existing entry===
Quality edit or insight added to an entry ranking in the top 20 on [[Google]]: '''20 points'''
*''Definition'': A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
*''Definition'':A Quality Insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days. It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences, though a references must be provided.

Quality edit or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: '''15 points'''
*''Definition'': A Quality edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
*''Definition'': A Quality new insight is an edit that conveys a profound truth that is not widely known, and which has an effect on the reader for days. It can be succinct and need not contain multiple sentences or even a reference, though references are encouraged.

Ordinary edit or insight added to an ordinary, existing entry: '''8 points'''
*''Definition'': An Ordinary edit contains some substance of value.
*''Definition'':An Ordinary insight is an edit that conveys truths that may be widely known among [[conservatives]] but which is generally suppressed or censored by [[liberals]] or otherwise highly informative. No reference is required.

Minor Edit of an existing entry: '''2 points'''
*''Definition'': A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.

*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only half credit.

===Images===
Adding a quality public domain image to an entry: '''4pts''' (+2 points per article if it's an image you uploaded)
*''Beware:'' Copyright violations will result in harsh penalties!

===Templates===
New Template: '''8 points'''
*''Definition:'' The template must have at least 4 non-userspace links.
===Redirects===
Redirecting a Page: '''1 point'''
*''Definition:'' Redirecting any page - whether the page was something different or not. Misspellings don't count.

===Breaking News===
Breaking News Item: '''3 points'''
*''Definition:'' A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.
*''Exception:'' A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 3 points and the administrator will receive 1 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page.

===Bonus Points===
*An additional bonus of '''3 points''' is awarded for adding a new entry on the "most-wanted" list, [[Special:Wantedpages]]
**'''Note carefully:''' The entry must be on [[Conservapedia:Contest5/Wanted|this list]]
*An additional bonus of 1 point is awarded for adding a link to an entry on the [[Special:Deadendpages]], and thereby removing that entry from that list
*An edit to an existing entry may qualify as a New Entry if the edit is substantial enough (however, mark these pages off so the judges can review).
*Adding a relevant photo to ''Breaking News'' will receive a '''2 points''' bonus.
*Blocking a vandal/sock/troll or reverting their vandalism: '''2 points'''.

===Notes===
An entry is "entertainment-related" if it relates to a subject not taught as core curriculum in a typical high school or college. This includes articles on sports, popular music, movies, and other entertaining but not necessarily educational subjects.
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.
*''Exception'': If entertainment entries are excessively useless - judges can deduct points
[[Category:Conservapedia Contest]]

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:55:39 GMT

Jdellaro:

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. Obama is currently the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]] He states that he opposed the [[Iraq War]], a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience,<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> he is the favorite of the leftist fundraiser "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> Joining Obama in voting against HR 2206 were senators Coburn and Enzi, whose voting rank is among the most conservative in the Senate.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama attended a Muslim school but independent news organizations have verified it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]] in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

== Books ==

* Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
* The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.
* Barack Obama in His Own Words. (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?'' (2008). [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 Daily Mail]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Liberal logic

Jdellaro — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:15:50 GMT

Jdellaro:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument that has logical appeal to a [[liberal]], but is nonsensical. Let's build a list:

* an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but saying a prayer in class can cause tremendous harm
* increasing spending by government must reduce poverty (no, dependency increases poverty)
* teaching abstinence-only does not reduce premarital sex
* widespread ownership of the largely defensive weapon of gun must not reduce crime
* that lack of government programs to rehabilitate criminals must not reduce crime
* that increasing taxes must increase government revenue (no, often people work less)

(add to list)
[[category:politics]][[Category:Liberals]]

110th United States Congress

Jdellaro — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:50:37 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Achievements */

[[Image:102.gif|350px|right|thumb|The Zogby International Poll reported a "paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July." <ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1359 Reuters/Zogby Poll], Septermber 19, 2007.</ref>]]
The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years.

==Achievements==

In the first five months of 2007 after the Democratic party took control of Congress, the majority party,

* Reissued a "blank check" to the President on the [[Iraq War]], which allegedly was opposed by 70 percent <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/ The entire government has failed us on Iraq], Keith Olbermann, MSNBC ''Countdown'', May 24, 2007.</ref> in opinion polls and was vociferously opposed by many Congressional candidates in 2006. The bill included an increase in the minimum wage.

* Successfully renamed six post offices, four courthouses, a national park, and one of the buildings housing the Department of Education in Washington. They also extended the lives of two government commissions, reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 20, and authorized construction of 541 feet of road on a flood plain in St. Louis County, Missouri.

*Kept the government going with two temporary spending bills, completed one appropriations bill which was vetoed, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, and passed a bill on penalties for animal fighting that had passed in the Republican Congress last year.

*Voted to kill lobbying reforms that were part of the 2006 [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act]] Democratic candidates made a centerpiece of their campaign message in 2006. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/panel-softens-lobbying-bill-provisions-2007-05-17.html Panel softens lobbying bill provisions], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', May 17, 2007.</ref>

*Passed a bill to allow federal funding of stem cell research on lines of stem cells derived from discarded human embryos created for fertility treatments. The bill caused the first veto of Bush's presidency.

*Passed a bipartisan bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, increasing coverage by 4 million people by 2012. After a Bush veto, Congress passed a second version which was also vetoed by the President.

*Passed the appropriations bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for 2008. It was vetoed by the President and did not pass an override.

By mid June 2007, Congressional Approval ratings had hit a new low, with only 23% of the American people expressing approval, worse than [[President George W. Bush]] had experienced. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070617-115222-5077r.htm Democratic Congress shows cracks], By Donald Lambro, ''The Washington Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref> The ''L.A. Times'' reported Congressional Approval ratings were the lowest in a decade--since the [[Bill_Clinton#Impeachment|Clinton Impeachment]] trial. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,1,2398539.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true Approval of Congress lowest in a decade], By Noam N. Levey, ''L.A. Times'', June 12, 2007.</ref>

==Earmark reform==

A House ethics panel is led by a lawmaker who holds the record for taking the most free travel, while another panel member was implicated in the recent flap over the firing of U.S. attorneys. The earmark process by which so-called "pork barrel" projects are doled out to members by June of 2007 saw no major changes. In fact, rules approved the first day in power in January, the ''Associated Press'' reported, where being ignored. Rep. [[David Obey]] of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed members to withhold "earmark requests" until September.

According to the ''Associated Press'', what Obey did ran counter to new rules Democrats promised that would make spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny. The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them. The greater transparency was intended to lead to more self-discipline on the part of lawmakers. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun03/0,4670,CongressPetProjects,00.html House Keeps Pet Projects From Scrutiny] Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, June 03, 2007.</ref> Two weeks later, a group called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) reported that after a wave of protest from across the [[political spectrum]], Democrats backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally earmarked spending. CAGW President Tom Schatz said
“Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play ‘God’ with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability.” <ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10818 Obey Lost - Taxpayers Won!], Citizens Against Waste in Government Press Release June 15, 2007.</ref>

The legislative journal, ''The Hill'', reported Sen. [[Carl Levin]] and Sen. [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] were the two top Senatorial [[Pork#Government_Budgets|pork barrel]] reciepients via the earmark process in 2007. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

==Tax increases==
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman [[John Dingell]] of Michigan announced a proposal for a new carbon tax that would increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents. In addition to raising the gasoline tax, Dingell’s new proposal would institute a “double digit” tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase], By Chris Good, ''The Hill'', July 07, 2007.</ref>

The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' reported in April House Ways and Means Chairman [[Charlie Rangel]] effectively declared the death of [[Reaganomics]] in America. Democrats have come up with an idea to slow the 17 million middle class Americans subject [[Alternative Minimum Tax]] (AMT). Changes in the AMT rate, and the treatment of dividends and capital gains, still leaves the budget at least $600 billion short of paying for the AMT fix. House Democrats have acknowledged that to close this final gap, they will have to consider raising personal income taxes.

The top AMT rate would increase to 31.5% from 28%. Democratic tax experts also recommend eliminating the lower rate for capital gains and dividends for those subject to the AMT. This would raise the capital gains tax rate to about 31% from its present 15% rate. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117789342653886488-search.html?KEYWORDS=tax&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month $650 Billion Tax Hike,] Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, ''The Wall Street Journal'', 4/30/07.</ref>

== Other Congresses ==
* Previous: [[109th United States Congress]]
* See also: [[103rd United States Congress]]
* [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.
*[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/23/rep-patrick-mchenry-earmark-crusader/ Rep. Patrick McHenry: Earmark Crusader: Updated], By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, June 23rd, 2007.

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

The New York Times

Jdellaro — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:08:29 GMT

Jdellaro:

The '''New York Times''' (NYT) is a [[newspaper]] that is published in [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] and distributed to readers worldwide. It is widely known to hold a [[liberal]] point of view<ref>[http://www.timeswatch.org/ TimesWatch: Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the ''New York Times'']</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200407290744.asp Just Say It, Dan Okrent], National Review Online</ref> It is the third most widely circulated newspaper in the United States behind ''[[USA Today]]'' and ''[[Wall Street Journal|The Wall Street Journal]]'' <ref>Infoplease.com: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html Top 100 Newspapers in the United States]</ref>. The newspaper has been awarded the most [[Pulitzer Prize]]s of any newspaper, with a total of 95.
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumb|Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.]]
The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. New York Times publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias, and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref>

[[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

The NYT publishes 15 other newspapers, including the ''International Herald Tribune'' (based in Paris) and the ''Boston Globe.''
Examples of types of [[liberal bias]] utilized by the New York Times include:
*[[placement bias]]
*[[photo bias]]
*[[genius bias]]

==Controversies==
*''The Times'' correspondent [[Walter Duranty]] intentionally covered up the [[Soviet]] [[Holodomor|genocide]] of the [[Ukraine|Ukrainians]].<ref>[http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty]</ref>

*C. L. Sulzberger in 1944 wrote a glowing review of [[Edgar Snow]]'s ''People on Our Side'' and plugged Snow's earlier 1937 work, ''Red Star Over China'' in which Snow stated, "The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the [[Chinese Communists]] have been under the close guidance, if not positive direction, of the [[Communist International]], which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the [[Russian Communist Party]]. In the final analysis this means that for better or worse, the policies of the Chinese Communists, like the Communists in every other country, have had to fall in line with, and usually subordinate themselves to, the broad strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the dictatorship of [[Stalin]]."<ref>New York Times Weekly Book Review, September 10, 1944; ''Red Star Over China'', Edgar Snow, New York, 1937, pg. 374. Quoted in ''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pgs. 73, 83] pdf.</ref> [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]], the leaders given endorsement here as "people on our side," are the two biggest [[democide|mass murderer]]s in history.

*In 2003, ''New York Times'' reporter [[Jayson Blair]] resigned after it was found that he had engaged in repeated [[plagiarism]] and [[deceit]], copying articles from other newspapers and making up other articles out of whole cloth. Blair was promoted and problems with his reporting were ignored due to the newspaper's adherence to [[affirmative action]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_blair.php Jayson Blair: A Case Study of What Went Wrong at The New York Times]</ref> Online NewsHour

*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in Delay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry just prior to the 2006 election.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Edit in question]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner] results for the NYT</ref>

*[[Michelle Malkin]] says the NYT has violated an agreement regarding [[Journalism|journalist]]s covering [[war|war casualties]]. <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/01/the-nytimes-unspeakable-violation/ The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation]</ref>

*The ''New York Times'' subsidized<ref>[http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? Subsidizing Sedition], Investor's Business Daily Editorial, 9/13/2007.</ref> what Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' referred to as a "vicious" attack on the person and charter of a respected professional soldier, Gen. [[David Petraeus]].<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> The [[radical]] [[liberal]] group [[MoveOn.org]], an organization which advocated maintaining the [[corrupt]] [[United Nations]] [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil For Food]] program's support for the [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] regime in [[Iraq]], ran a full page ad in the ''Times'' at roughly half the cost of regular price impugning Gen. Petraeus credibility as a traitor.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/New York Times|Articles about '''New York Times''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Homosexuality in the Media]]

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

==External Links==
*http://www.nytimes.com/ Official Website
*http://www.timeswatch.org/ [[TimesWatch]] - Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times

[[Category:United States Newspapers|New York Times]]

Mitt Romney

Jdellaro — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:32:34 GMT

Jdellaro: /* 2008 Presidential Campaign */

[[Image:Xnmhv.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb|Mitt Romney]]
'''Willard "Mitt" Romney''' (born March 12, 1947), served as the governor of [[Massachusetts]] from 2003 to 2007 and is a [[Republican]] candidate in the 2008 presidential election. If elected, he would become the first [[Mormon]] president. Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. As governor, Romney balanced the budget every year in his administration without raising taxes or increasing debt. He also created over 60,000 new jobs and brought [[conservative]] change to the [[liberal]] state of Massachusetts.

== Personal ==
[[Image:MittRomneyYouth05.jpg|thumb|Ann Lois Davies and Willard Mitt Romney]]
Currently, Romney is gaining popularity because his stable marriage attracts conservative audiences who are unhappy with [[John McCain]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], and [[Newt Gingrich]]'s many divorces. In fact, Romney's wife, Ann, has even made it a point to highlight this difference, commenting at one GOP event that the difference between her husband and the other Republican candidates is that "he's had only one wife."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802781_pf.html</ref>

Romney is the son of former [[Michigan]] Governor and presidential candidate George Romney, a "Rockefeller Republican,"<ref>Lisa McGirr,Suburban Warriors (book), Copyright 2001, Princeton University Press, p. 141, 222.</ref> Many Massachusetts Republicans do not connect the father's politics with the son's, much like Presidents [[George H. W. Bush|George Herbert Walker Bush]] and [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]].

== Political Views ==

===Abortion===
"I am [[pro-life]]. I believe that [[abortion]] is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by [[judicial mandate]]." ([[Boston]] Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref> 

Despite having a largely pro-life record as governor, in a 1994 debate with Senator [[Edward Kennedy]], Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." "Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion", Romney said. "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that." [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2]

In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Romney expressed a willingness to defend that State's pro-choice status quo. [http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4]

===Civil Unions===

Romney is opposed to the idea of [[gay marriage]], however he has voiced support for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for [[homosexuals]].[http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3]

===Economic Agenda===

As President, Governor Mitt Romney says he will pursue a Conservative, Pro-Growth [[Economic]] Agenda. Governor Romney's number one economic priority would be to grow the economy — helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He says he would work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America's continued economic growth, he promises to cut taxes — such as the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates.

Governor Romney says he would also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessive regulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.

====Overall Economic Priorities====

*Lowering Taxes: Proposes lowering tax rates for all Americans.
*Spending: Believes Washington's focus should be on cutting spending.
*National Tort Reform: Supports nationwide reforms to our tort system.
*Union Card Check Legislation: Supports the rights of workers to decide whether to join a union or not.
*Regulatory Reform and Sarbanes-Oxley: Believes the Washington regulatory burden is too high.

===Immigration===

<blockquote>Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America. [http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration]</blockquote>
*[http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/NEWS09/703230396/-1/politics Des Moines Register: Romney: Reform Immigration, Allow Students To Stay]
*[http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=91722 IowaPolitics.com: Romney Touts Strong Stance On Illegal Immigration]

:On 5/24/07, Romney spoke about how he was tolerant about Gays and then he discussed the current illegal immigration bill before Congress:
<blockquote>He expressed less tolerance for illegal immigrants, and said he and President Bush have a difference of opinions on a bill that would provide a path toward legalization for an estimated 12 million people unlawfully in the country.

"He has his view, and other people have their views and I have my own," Romney said. "This is for all intents and purposes a form of amnesty in that everyone who is here illegally today will be able to stay under this bill."

The bill is unfair to people who are trying to come to the country legally, he said. People here illegally should be able to apply to come to the United States, but under the same terms as everyone else and behind those who have already applied.

"I don't think that we're going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That's not what I'm talking about," Romney said. "Those who committed felonies, of course, would be deported. Those who require government assistance to stay here would surely need to get off government assistance and ultimately could not remain here on government assistance."[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,RomneyGays,00.html]</blockquote>

===Stem Cell Research===
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments.[http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/]

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
As chairman of the [[Republican Governors Association]], Mitt Romney spent a lot of time in 2006 campaigning across the country for Republican gubernatorial candidates. While he did not run for reelection as governor, in 2004 Romney set up a federal political action committee (PAC) called the Commonwealth PAC, which raised 2.71 million during the 2006 election cycle. On January 3, 2007, his next-to-last day in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney filed to form a presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission. He officially announced his candidacy for President about a month later. Romney was the first candidate in either party to start running [[television]] and [[radio]] ads. The ads focused mainly on his record as governor, running the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, and his work as a very successful businessman. Romney's five sons have been actively campaigning for their father, traveling around in a campaign bus called the "Mitt Mobile, A Five Brothers Bus."

Romney won the Michigan primary on January 16th, 2008, with 39% of the vote, edging out McCain with 30% and Huckabee with 16%. Romney was favored to win in the state of his birth, where his father, [[George Romney]] was governor from 1963-1969. After losing both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary (to Huckabee and McCain, respectively), Romney won a low-publicized Wyoming caucus. On January 19, Romney easily won the [[Nevada]] caucuses by 37 percentage points when there were seven candidates on the ballot, however, on that same day he placed a distant fourth in the [[South Carolina]] primary. Governor Romney currently leads among delegate's, with him having 72, and McCain in second with 38.

After a disappointing performance on Super Tuesday, Romney was set to announce on Thursday, February 07 the suspension of his campaign.

==[[Ames Straw Poll]]==
On August 11, 2007, Mitt Romney won the Ames Straw Poll. He received 31% of the vote at the Straw Poll, a larger margin than then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] received in 2000. Former [[Arkansas]] Governor [[Mike Huckabee]] came in second with 18%.

==Fundraising==
Mitt Romney has done well in fund raising. During his first fund raiser as a presidential candidate, he raised 6.5 million dollars when his goal was to raise 1 million. During the first quarter Romney raised more money then any other Republican presidential candidate with $23 million. However, a substantial portion of his funds ($17 million) came from his own personal wealth. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/16/top_spender_romney_could_soon_run_short/]

==Opinion polling==
[[Image:Dude and mitt romney.jpg|right|180px]]
Mitt Romney leads in all the early primary states such as [[Iowa]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Michigan]]. He also leads in [[Idaho]], [[Utah]] and [[Wyoming]]. However, Romney is behind Mayor Giuliani and Senator Fred Thompson by narrow margins. A poll taken August 13, 2007 in South Carolina showed Romney (17%) moving up to third place behind Giuliani (18%) and Thompson (22%), though with the margin of error all three candidates were effectively tied.

==Endorsements==
===Congressional===
* Former [[Speaker of the House]] [[J. Dennis Hastert|Dennis Hastert]]
* Senator [[Bob Bennett]] of [[Utah]]
* Senator [[Orrin Hatch]] of [[Utah]]
* Senator [[Larry Craig]] of [[Idaho]]
* Senator [[Jim DeMint]] of [[South Carolina]]
* Senator [[Wayne Allard]] of [[Colorado]]
* Senator [[Judd Gregg]] of [[New Hampshire]]
* Former Sen. [[Jim Talent]] of [[Missouri]]

===Governors===
* Missouri Governor [[Matt Blunt]]
* Former Colorado Governor [[Bill Owens]]
* [[Rhode Island]] Governor [[Donald Carcieri]]
* Former South Carolina Governor James B. Edwards
* Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld
* Former Montana Governor Tim Babcock

===Talk Radio===
* [[Rush Limbaugh]] <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008</ref>

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

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=17633 Mitt Romney: proudly, quietly Mormon]
*[http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ Evangelicals for Mitt]
*[http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2007/03/fresh-mitt-romney-juvenalia-hot-off.html Fresh Mitt Romney Juvenalia] Pics - Comments.
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4MmMyMzVkZjlhZGQzNzlhZjdmMDEzNjI3MzM4ZTA= Mitt Romney: “I Changed My View. Is that So Difficult to Understand?”] The candidate talks about his efforts to convince voters that his pro-life conversion is real. Byron York, National Review Online, November 20, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE= Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?] Mark Hemingway, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EzODZjY2UxZTRhMWE2ZDk1ZWE5MGI0ZmRjMDViZTI= Team Romney on Push-Poll Connections] After reading the Hemingway piece, Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman replies. Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzliMDgzOWVlOGEwYThlMzc5ZDVlNzM2YjA4M2ZkYTg= Romney Stands for Faith] The candidate pushes back against push-poll attacks. Larry Kudlow, National Review Online, November 16, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4YmM4Y2U3Yjc3MzYzNDQwYzk3YTVjMTI5YTkwNzg= Romney’s Religion], The Editors, National Review Online, November 16, 2007

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://conservativesagainstromney.com/ Conservatives Against Romney]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Romney, Mitt}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Mike Huckabee

Jdellaro — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:31:15 GMT

Jdellaro: Undo revision 385377 by Special:Contributions/DaChan (User talk:DaChan)

[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|Mike Huckabee]]
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less conservative on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007.

Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with Republican primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse".<ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

==Recent Performance in Caucuses and Primaries==
A candidate for President in 2008, Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote. His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm, reasonable and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states. He was victorious in the Republican Caucuses at the [[Iowa Caucuses]]<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref>, and came in third place in the New Hampshire Primary, where he personally expected to not even place in the top three.<ref>http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate".<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and in back of [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref><ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>
He came in third in the [[Michigan]] primaries and a close second to [[John McCain]] in [[South Carolina]].

In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined.<ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>

== Record as Governor ==
As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors".<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

== Political Beliefs ==
===Taxes===
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[FairTax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Spending===
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million.<ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref> Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Abortion===
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

He would favor [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

===Marriage===
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref>

===Second Amendment Rights===
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

===Immigration===
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy [[immigration]] bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportat illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering [[Partisan politics in the United States|partisanship]]. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call 'Vertical Politics'." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.''<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in Arkansas. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.

==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>
* "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."<ref>''http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx''[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx]</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary.<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]].<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref> During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>

===New Hampshire===
Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref> Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Governors]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:59:24 GMT

Jdellaro: Noted news org. confirmation of Obama school

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is, as of 2007, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience,<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> he is currently a [[liberal]] favorite for the Democratic nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'', which has a [[quota]] system for accepting African Americans,{{fact|date=January 2008}} and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama attended a Muslim school but independent news organizations have verified it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]] in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?'' (2008). [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 Daily Mail]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:19:47 GMT

Jdellaro: /* References */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" ==

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:19:28 GMT

Jdellaro: References

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:18:45 GMT

Jdellaro: Foreign Policy Experience

John Edwards

Jdellaro — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:41:14 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Attacks on Ann Coulter */

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

----

'''John Edwards''', is a prominent [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Populism|populist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury [[trial lawyer]] in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

Social commentator [[Ann Coulter]] quoted an article from the ''[[New York Times]]'' about Edwards behavior in the courtroom with this description, "He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped [[fetus]] in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to ''The New York Times'', Edwards told one jury: "

{{Cquote|She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>}}

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one 6 year term, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for President. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

===2004 Vice-Presidential Candidacy===

Democratic National Committee insider [[Bob Shrum]] reported in his book ''No Excuses'' about the 2004 loss of Kerry/Edwards. In the book Shrum told of private Kerry-Edwards discussions when Democratic Presidential Nominee [[John Kerry]] was considering Edwards for the Vice-Presidential slot;

{{Cquote|(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.}}

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref> In the spring of 2007, Edwards was ridiculed for getting $400 haircuts and charging his political campaign for them. He later said that he reimbursed his campaign $800.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

The ''New York Times'' reported Edwards created a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, according to tax filings. The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin In Aiding Poor Edwards Built Bridge to 2008], Leslie Waynem ''New York Times'', June 22, 2007.</ref>

John Edwards ended his run to become the Democratic candidate fot the 2008 presidential election after the [[Florida]] primaries on January 29, 2008, when he became a distant third to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]]. It was the third primary in arow where he ended third, and he dropped out before Super Tuesday, when voters in twenty-two states allocating about 45 per cent of the delegates.

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocrisy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. One often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

===Attacks on Ann Coulter===

In August 2007, John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator [[Ann Coulter]], calling her a "she-devil" <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'], ''ABC News'', August 17, 2007.</ref>

Recently, ABC’s [[Chris Cuomo]] ambushed Ann Coulter with a personal attack on her and the [[GOP]] by asking,

{{Cquote|But to begin with the tough words, some tough words for you by the three top candidates in response to what you had said, some were calling it a homosexual slur, you said it was a taunt. They all came out when you were talking about John Edwards and said, 'This was wrong. We must deny it." Fair criticism of you or a shift towards the tolerant among the GOP? <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13750 Ann Coulter Discusses John Edwards, Bill Maher, and the ‘F-word’ on ‘GMA’], Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, June 26, 2007.</ref>}}

Coulter responded,

{{Cquote|No, no. There were, I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was, was from I'mALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com… Very upsetting…Though about the same time [[Bill Maher]] said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word...But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was ''not'' joking and saying he wished [[Dick Cheney]] had been killed in a [[terrorist]] attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>}}

In March 2007, Coulter was attacked after saying,

{{Cquote|Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.}}

Six days after the ''[[New York Times]]'' published an article about the questionable practices of Edwards non-profit group which allegedly had been founded with the stated aim to fight poverty but had in fact been used by staffers for travel and campaign work, [[Elizabeth Edwards]] in what was obviously an effort to detract from the revelations attacked Ann Coulter on [[Chris Matthews]] HARDBALL. Matthews, a former Democratic presidential speech writer for [[Jimmy Carter]], with a reputation for constantly interrupting guests in mid-sentence, never once interrupted Elizabeth Edwards. Coulter was not informed before hand by Matthews and staff she would be appearing with the candidates wife. Mrs. Edwards said,

{{Cquote|I'm the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues,}}

referring to an article Coulter wrote in 2003 about various Democratic Presidential candidates who had exploited family tragedies for partisan political purposes:

{{Cquote|[[Al Gore]] famously inaugurated the family tragedy routine at the 1992 Democratic National Convention...to recount the story of his son being hit by a car. At the 1996 convention, Gore told a tear-jerker about his sister's long, painful death from lung cancer. ...[[Gephardt]] has taken to spinning out a long, pitiful tale of his son's near-death three decades ago. ...Mrs. Gephardt weeps anew as her husband tells the same gut-wrenching story over and over again. ...John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on ''Good Morning America,'' in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.

I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [[Karl Rove]] would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing. <ref>[http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119 The Party of ideas], Ann Coulter, 11/19/2003.</ref>}}

President [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Barbara Bush]] suffered the loss of a child sibling in 1953; there is no record whatsoever of the Bush family using the death of a child to gain sympathy in any of the Presidential elections G.H.W. Bush was involved in, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, or [[G.W. Bush]] in 2000 or 2004, yet [[liberal]] authors have exploited the tragedy to attack, slander, and impugn the entire Bush family, Bush Sr., Barbara Bush, and G.W. Bush. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html Bush on the Couch]
By Justin Frank, 2004. Retrieved from the History News Network 29 June 2007.</ref>

The staged event netted Edwards sorely lagging campaign $450,000 from 2300 donors using cropped, out-of-context video snippets within 24 hours. <ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/06/29/compromise-looms-in-private-equity-fight/ Edwards and McCain Battle to stay in 2008 top tier], John Harwood, ''Wall Street Journal'' Washinton Wire, June 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13791 ABC Links Edwards/Coulter Call to '08 Fundraising Deadline, NBC Distorts Coulter], Brad Wilmouth, Newsbusters, June 28, 2007.</ref>

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/John Edwards|Articles about '''John Edwards''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Edwards, John}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:37:38 GMT

Jdellaro: Added liberal to descrption of Tribe

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is, as of 2007, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience, he is currently a [[liberal]] favorite for the Democratic nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for [[Congress]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'', which has a [[quota]] system for accepting African Americans,{{fact|date=January 2008}} and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:36:44 GMT

Jdellaro: Remove "absurd" left quote per Aschafly's instruction in Talkpage

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is, as of 2007, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience, he is currently a [[liberal]] favorite for the Democratic nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for [[Congress]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'', which has a [[quota]] system for accepting African Americans,{{fact|date=January 2008}} and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:27:42 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Affirmative action in summary */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:17:59 GMT

Jdellaro: /* Affirmative action in summary */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:15:09 GMT

Jdellaro: Removed personal opinion on Tribe's remarks

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is, as of 2007, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience, he is currently a [[liberal]] favorite for the Democratic nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>[http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for [[Congress]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'', which has a [[quota]] system for accepting African Americans,{{fact|date=January 2008}} and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Rightwing

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:44:58 GMT

Jdellaro: Redirecting to Right-wing

#redirect [[Right-wing]]

Barack Hussein Obama

Jdellaro — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:48:41 GMT

Jdellaro:

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is, as of 2007, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term.
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]

Despite a lack of military, executive or foreign policy experience, he is currently a [[liberal]] favorite for the Democratic nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref>

Throughout his career, he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for [[Congress]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was elected the first African American president of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'', which has a [[quota]] system for accepting African Americans,{{fact|date=January 2008}} and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first-quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years, followed by two years at a local Catholic school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim.

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Patriot Act

Jdellaro — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:04:02 GMT

Jdellaro:

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''USA PATRIOT ACT''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impeteous to pass the measures. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd, with few minor changes. A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush Administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers for obtaining [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s and Senate's liking than the version approved by the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. The Senate agreed to the sunset provision and this version passed the House the next day by a massive 337-79 vote. The House and Senate reconciled an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold dissenting) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarian]]s and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented additional safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

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

[[Category:United States law]]

Patriot Act

Jdellaro — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:00:19 GMT

Jdellaro:

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''USA Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impeteous to pass the measures. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd, with few minor changes. A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush Administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers for obtaining [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s and Senate's liking than the version approved by the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. The Senate agreed to the sunset provision and this version passed the House the next day by a massive 337-79 vote. The House and Senate reconciled an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold dissenting) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarian]]s and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented additional safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

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

[[Category:United States law]]

Human race

Jdellaro — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:57:21 GMT

Jdellaro: Redirecting to Homo sapiens

#redirect [[Homo_sapiens]]

Human beings

Jdellaro — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:57:02 GMT

Jdellaro: Redirecting to Homo sapiens

#redirect [[Homo_sapiens]]

Persons

Jdellaro — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:56:48 GMT

Jdellaro: Redirecting to Homo sapiens

#redirect [[Homo_sapiens]]

People

Jdellaro — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:56:38 GMT

Jdellaro: Redirecting to Homo sapiens

#redirect [[Homo_sapiens]]