Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/archive4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bill Ayers

The Accusation that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father is completely and utterly ridiculous the accusation that Obama did not pen his auto biography is not fact based at all.

Not convenient for learning

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

Hmmm...I agree with you on every one of your other points concerning this astoundingly bigotted and paranoid offcut of some X Files episode, but, just for a diversion, I do think "would likely become" is correct English. It's a construction that is now becoming rare, but far from being something a "recent learner" would write, it would more likely be the sort of phrase an older, more careful and formally trained writer would use. And if someone asks me what my credentials for being a conservative might be, I would proudly put my hand over my heart and point to my love for correct and elegant English, which is more than the collection of barefoot hillybilly gun nuts and Chuck Norris worshipping semi-literates that whoop it up around this neck of the woods could declare. MylesP 00:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --Limbo 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--Aschlafly 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. Acwellman 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--Limbo 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--Frey 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Meaning of Hussein

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up:
1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this:
" Husayn ♂ Diminutive of hasan 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (c.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party."
Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect.
2nd point: The source currently referenced ( displays this for the definition of Hussein:
"Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet"
which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --Limbo 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--Jpatt 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --Limbo 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--Jpatt 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names,,,, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name means and what a name comes from. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --Limbo 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I reverted because you had this posted once before, it was removed by someone other than me. In its place was what the site owner had compiled. So in essence, you deleted his sentence and ref link. --Jpatt 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

No longer presumptive

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. Athuroglossos 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. Redstatepride 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Education In Jakarta, Indonesia

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--EmpressG1973 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --Patriot1505

Actually it was his school that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- rkstiner

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --Patriot1505

Name calling?....where?Rkstiner

So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. MichaelR 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --Patriot1505

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

Reversion Explained

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--Aschlafly 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. Yesaliberal 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? TJason 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. Yesaliberal 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". TJason 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. Acwellman 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--Jpatt 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action President

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. TJason 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the only reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. Corry 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. Learn together 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. Corry 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. Learn together 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. Corry 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the only reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a major force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, I won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. TJason 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. Corry 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). TJason 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Corry 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.TJason 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. Corry 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Alleged" birth revert

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? Corry 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. TJason 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. Corry 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. Bugler 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.
We know many liberals love deceit, and the birth certificate posted by Obama's campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--Aschlafly 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. Corry 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? TJason 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? DefenderofTrue 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. Corry 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I like the changes you have made. TJason 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. Corry 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. TJason 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. Corry 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [9] --Jpatt 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source does say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: HelpJazz 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

We have a problem

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. Saksjn 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- 50 star flag.png jp 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number

I copied this from the Main Page Talk section to here because you all might find it of interest. --AdmiralNelson 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Look at this photo, is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? Visitor 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is 151 1961 - 010641. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:
151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753
and then add the individual digits of the result thus:
1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18
the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or 666, sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --AdmiralNelson 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.
One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--Jpatt 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. Jirby 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone? Visitor 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm giving it a chance. Jirby 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. Visitor 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
Can I quote myself? I just thought this was interesting. For "seriousness" I stand by my record. Feel free to check it out. --AdmiralNelson 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson Acwellman 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)


The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? Visitor 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I think he does dispute it.--Aschlafly 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. Berg vs Obama --Jimmygoddard 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)


Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--Aschlafly 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --Jareddr 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Requested change

Original text:

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.

Requested new text:

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --Ampersand 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)


This link should be commented out until this abysmal essay is fixed. Marge 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Pearl Harbor issue

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (bombs did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. OtherSide 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation don't know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. RobCross 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.
Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--Jareddr 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. RobCross 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --Jareddr 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. SamuelHTD 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --Jareddr 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--Aschlafly 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P SamuelHTD 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --Jareddr 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--Aschlafly 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. SamuelHTD 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--Aschlafly 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.AliceBG 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it is rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but not in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an intro. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --DirkB 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. CraigC 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Citation Needed

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this: Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this: After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

Tone of the article on Obama

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--Aschlafly 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) User:Archer070

Tone of the article on Obama

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--Aschlafly 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) Googly 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and 2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant fair and change the picture.

I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern...

  1. (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

  1. (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

  1. (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) ( He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again. <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this:

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?Jirby 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --Ampersand 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. Jirby 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --AndrasK 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--Aschlafly 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. Jirby 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--Aschlafly 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
So those edits won't be explained? --Mattyp 13:02, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Large repetitions!

The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. ClarkeD 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! ClarkeD 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line

Was just trying to fix my spelling error, not trying to revert Andy. --GunsandaBible.

So what is "redistrubution" (sic). You gotta laugh, some times, don't you? "Ah can't spell redistribution, but ah sure as heck am agin it." You probably wouldn't have 2 nickels to rub together, but you just KNOW that redistribution is evil, unless of course, taxpayers have to shell out trillions to bail out greedy banks. Have you guys ever worn shoes? MylesP 23:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

That quote has nothing to do with Obama. It simply does not belong in this article unless Obama has gone on record quoting it.

"My Muslim Faith" quote

I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. Billgates3

Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? KennyMac 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. Mk 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Surely this is all superfluous? The quotation is taken out of context; Obama clearly explains what he meant about 5 seconds later on the youtube video. The point either needs different justification (good luck) or should be deleted. It is perilously close to being libelous. --09:29, 6 November 2008 (EST)~

Muslim & Catholic holidays

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? KennyMac 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- 50 star flag.png jp 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? KennyMac 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Unreliable sourcing and references

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? Egen 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. Egen 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- 50 star flag.png jp 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--Frey 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") Egen 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Senate career

HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- 50 star flag.png jp 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat does add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. HelpJazz 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

I live in the UK, and as a new, but avid, reader of your excellent web-site - indeed an refreshingly "trustworthy" source in a media full of liberal bias and 'reasoned argument' (atheist communism)- I would just like to congratulate you for electing your first Muslim president.

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?

Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. Devout 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. Xapdal5 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' Booster 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--Saxplayer 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. Booster 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--Frey 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. SyedO 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. Patriot1505

...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law is offended by your lack of understanding. --Rainedaye 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. Egen 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. Xapdal5 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --Jimmygoddard 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are really what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --Rainedaye 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

What does "alleged" mean

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. LarryHapp 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --Jimmygoddard 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (Dreams from my Father, I think.)--Frey 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. CraigC 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --Jimmygoddard 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. RSchlafly 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.
Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).
This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --Jimmygoddard 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

A compromise for place of birth issues?

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --Jimmygoddard 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a Muslim pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. WaZi 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--Aschlafly 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? WaZi 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. AliceBG 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--Aschlafly 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
But isn't Obama an American? --Hsmom 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
He claims to be. Bugler 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? AliceBG 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. WaZi 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--Aschlafly 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.AliceBG 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? WaZi 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

I think it should be mentioned that he does not use the American pronunciation of nuclear - he pronounces it as it is written, rather than the correct "nucular".
You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--Aschlafly 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.
I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

Section headings

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.AliceBG 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--Aschlafly 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Fine--why undo the section headings, then? AliceBG 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like AliceBG, I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --Hsmom 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, i see the problem too. AliceBG 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)


A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. AliceBG 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Told you. He won't listen.AliceBG 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. HelpJazz 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. HelpJazz 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.


In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:

  • Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."[1][2] [3][4] For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.[5]
  • He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the University of Chicago Law School as of 2004[6] and is no longer active at the school.[7]
  5. Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[1]

To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:

  • "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.[1] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
  • This reference [2] is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's Statement Regarding Barack Obama.
  • The next two references are repeats of the first two.
  • The next is the University of Chicago's Statement Regarding Barack Obama.[3] It states: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
  • The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [4]
  3. [2]
  4. [3]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:

  • Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.[1] He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.[2] He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.[3] Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. [4]The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.[5]
  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]

--Hsmom 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)


Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. WaZi 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? Patriot1505
Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your current President?! WaZi 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--Aschlafly 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. WaZi 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. Acwellman 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Birth certificate edit

The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. Karajou 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). Karajou 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

sex ed for kindergartners?

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.