Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/archive10

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - JamesCA 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

Better, More Objective Article at

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --Jzy 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago. --Jzy 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--Jpatt 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.
The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --Jzy 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --Jzyehoshua 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Last Change

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

Thanks. Regular 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Changes, Detailed

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

I left the Lede intact.

  • Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
  • Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
  • Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
  • Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
  • Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
  • Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
  • 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
  • 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
  • 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
  • 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
  • 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
  • 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
  • 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
  • 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--Jzyehoshua 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:

Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited England in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".

I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --Jzyehoshua 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --Jzyehoshua 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判:英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:

Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by Carl Davidson.Davidson is a longtime Maoist and champion of the Thought of Mao Tse Tung. Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, Left in Form, Right in Essence defends Maoist doctrine.
Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判:英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.
"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people," nevertheless Obama opposed "dumb wars".

I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --Jzyehoshua 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --Jzyehoshua 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --Jzyehoshua 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --Jzyehoshua 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)


Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--TheQuestioner 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --Jpatt 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
What do you mean?--TheQuestioner 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Title of article

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. AcomaMagic 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Ronald Wilson Reagan?? --James Wilson 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. AcomaMagic 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Teleprompter at school

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the media using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [1] SharonW 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --Joshua Zambrano 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

"may have had a prior marriage"

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? Rafael 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. MattyD 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? MattyD 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
No--Jpatt 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? MattyD 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Page has too many kbs

This age is WAY too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,

I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. OscarO 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT?)

Could the group agree on creating three major subpages such as "Obama Presidency", then move the current content to the subpages and have only a summary paragraph in this article for each of the subpages? That would give this article a readable length. It would also make editing easier and page loading quicker. Wschact 06:49, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

Country of birth

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? Nightsky 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

  • I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. JGrant 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and not a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed? If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical Frank Marshall Davis. Karajou 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. Nightsky 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
What is needed is for the actual birth certificate to be seen in public and examined by impartial investigators. News items are here: [2]
They aren't reliable sources and I'm not even sure they can be counted as a news item. For a claim that the birth certificate has been proven to be false, I expect a media frenzy and a vote of no confidence in Congress. Nightsky 18:47, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
First, you are in no position to judge what is and what is not a reliable source; you're just another individual. Second, their wont be a media frenzy about this subject because the media here is solidly pro-Obama, which is why WND, Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, and similar organizations labeled "faux" by leftists with severe bias problems are covering the story. Karajou 19:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Meh, they were accused of being Pro-Bush, especially during the WMD intelligence controversy. If a news organisation can break a story as big as this would be, they'll take it. At the moment there's no evidence that it's fake and it's a fringe theory even among Republicans and it's a non-issue. Nightsky 19:15, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
They did break the story; if it's not your favorite news organization I don't know what to tell you. Karajou 19:35, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
There were reports that some conservatives alleged it was fake and that very few people agreed with them, even among republicans. Nightsky 13:44, 12 October 2012 (EDT)


Sorry if this has been discussed before, but wouldn't it be better for consistancy with the other presidential pic to have the image at the top of the article to be the official US presidential portrait. --Dvergne 08:29, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Definitely. The current photo is of fairly low quality, and isn't focused on the face. I can see why it was chosen, I just think that those reasons betray stupidity and parochialism and are not really worthy of consideration. Cmurphynz 04:30, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Indeed, the change to this picture seems to conflict with our distaste for Liberal Tricks, see e.g. Biased Photos Media_tricks WilliamWB 16:42, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Change done. Conservative 14:24, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Saying that he is the president

I was thinking that the first sentence of this article should start by saying that Obama is the current president of the US, instead of saying that he was elected president of the US in 2008 and 2012. For example, I think it should read "Obama is the 44th and current president of the US"... and then talk about how he was elected in '08 and '12. GSalmeron 18:01, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Article Shortening

A while back RobSmith, Conservative and myself set to shorten this article, as it had grown to a massive size. Anyone who edits the page now should see this warning:

WARNING: This page is 116 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.

I think we all know it's important that articles such as this one include only the major and necessary contexts, because obviously subpages (on ideology, religion, etc.) can be linked to to establish further context and details. Obviously before starting anything too drastic I'd like to make sure that there's community support for such a downsizing; to give you all some idea:

  • This link is the general finalization of the work that was done at the update page compared with what the article was prior to the update. Further updates were made, obviously, but that diff is the general sense of what we tried to achieve.
  • This link is everything that has happened since (about) that. Obviously a little expansion is expected; major events have occurred and an election was held - but the article size was more than tripled (we had gotten it down to about 35 kb i believe).

I figured this was not worth mentioning during the election, but since the election has passed I think we once again have an opportunity to look at the article with more perspective and trim it - as is necessary for the page to work on all browsers (according to the wiki software). Thoughts before I create a second update page (which will also have a talk page for more thoughts) - I plan on waiting some time before doing this so feel free to take your time.--IDuan 13:04, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Everyone we still need to get on this. I'm going to start drafting some edits.--IDuan 18:56, 24 July 2013 (EDT)


So, Obama moved to Chicago circa 1984 when Harold Washington was Mayor, began community organizing and other jobs, moved to Massachussetts to attend Harvard, graduated and returned to Chicago as an intern at Sidley Austin circa 1988 and met Michelle. Is that correct? it seems somewhat ambiguous. OscarO 18:18, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Obama to blame for USA credit downgrade

This part of the article should be removed, as it is not true. Standard & Poor's, the credit agency who ordered the downgrade, specifically cited the Tea Party faction of Congress as the responsible party in that incident. MackD 00:55, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I'm sorry but that to me seems like a poor excuse from an Obama supporter. Barack Obama is completely responsible for the credit downgrade due to the huge amounts of money he used to essentially buy votes. Your argument is flawed pure and simple Dvergne 00:59, 21 February 2013 (EST)
I must respectfully disagree. The exact quote from Standard and Poor's on the matter is: "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues." MackD 01:06, 20 January 2013 (EST)

No one is going to read this

Guys this article is all over the place and is almost 100kb too large. I posted above about article length and the need to fork sections - unfortunately I never got started on that project, but I'm the one who did the last effort (with Conservative and RobSmith). Until the people who consistently edit this page understand that they should not make a new section for every dig or new piece of information they can get in, it's never going to be fixed. I mean we know this is bad, right? When was the last time someone read this article top to bottom?--IDuan 15:35, 18 December 2013 (EST)

I found the opening quite off-putting and unencyclopedic. Should early voting really go on top? The "scandal" over how many Twitter followers he didn't have is amusing, but extremely trivial. The parenthetical can just say "born August 4, 1961." The birth certificate issue can go lower down. He must have the worst unemployment and growth numbers of any president since Hoover. Put those on top. PeterKa 11:32, 19 December 2013 (EST)


As far as I know Conservapedia is not a Neoconservaitve website. So its ok if Obama opposed the Operation Iraqi Freedom.--JoeyJ 07:55, 6 January 2014 (EST)