Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal

2012-09-16T23:06:48Z

AcomaMagic: Undo revision 1005210 Write a fricking reason! It is content from the same source and disliking what it says isn't sufficient reason for removal

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]].

*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American [[Christian|Christians]]. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by a ratio of a little under 2:1. Polls also show that liberal views increase with education. Young people are also more likely to be liberal than older generations.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act(ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Talk:Solar System

2012-09-16T23:03:01Z

AcomaMagic: /* Age of solar system */ reason please

The template is covering up the text. I removed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
: Could you please post a screen shot so that I can look at how it renders and make appropriate changes to the table in the template? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't know what your talking about but the text of the article is being covered up by that thing you want to put in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::It isn't appearing like that on my screen, or Mtur's screen, apparently. Press "print screen", paste it in to MS paint, upload to Photobucket (or Imageshack), and then link us to the image. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't have the software above, hoji. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::: Could you say what operating system and browser are you using? It would go a ways to finding the problem (to see if someone else can recreate it) and finding a screen capture program for you to use. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think I fixed it; the template was using "float; 'absolute'" at 15px from the right. So it was at an absolute location, not relative to the rest of the content. I think that fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== On the capitalization of Solar System ==

From the [http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html International Astronomical Union]
<blockquote>
The IAU formally recommends that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.
</blockquote>
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fixedearth.com ==

That fixedearth site doesn't look like a very reliable resource.... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Well, [[liberal logic|logically]] you might think that, but... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::That joke's not really that funny anymore. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:08, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::You're right. I'm sorry HelpJazz. :-( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Wasn't trying to be mean :( Look now I'm sad, too! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::XD Well sometimes I joke a bit too much. I do think you're a cool guy though. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Age of solar system==

If you have sources for [[theory|theories]] about the age of the solar system, please include this information in a section of the article '''before''' changing the intro. Thanks from a senior editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:I added the origin of solar systems but people keep reverting. Annoyingly, they don't even give a reason. Provide one please. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:59, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:*Not "people", but a user with blocking rights and a senior admin. You know better than to start an edit war. Also, my comment above gave the reason; don't pretend you didn't see it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia takes a [[Young Earth]] Creationist approach to the question of the origins of the physical universe. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 16:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't. It does, however, respect '''all''' viewpoints on issues where there is a controversy. So:
:#Do not start a new section about this, as if you hadn't bothered to read what was already written, and
:#Avoid making nonsensical comments about policy, and
:#Do not say no reason was given for a revert, when one was given.
:You are allowed to disagree about how to write an article, but you're not allowed to make up fictions. First, last, and only warning. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:06, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
::I added the YEC view, however it really is undo weight to add a fringe view to the solar system article. That sort of theory only belong on YEC's article. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:02, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

I'd like an explanation for the revert of my revert by Conservative. Also, '''WRITE AN EDIT SUMMARY!!!!!''' This will save a lot of time and will not contribute to you looking like an arrogant *bleep*. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 19:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Solar System

2012-09-16T22:54:00Z

AcomaMagic: Undo revision 1006070 Ridiculous edit. Over 99% of all scientists are not "liberal evolutionists", they are just scientists; it wasn't formed "from sheer chance" and YEC's haven't proved that

According to the scientific consensus, the Solar System consists of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound in orbit around it, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.6 billion years ago.

[[Young Earth Creationists]] reject this and believe it was made by a deity less than 10,000 years ago. However, support for this theory is virtually nil among scientists.

==Planets==
A [[planet]] is defined as an object that orbits the [[sun]], is massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and is dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood. <ref>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planetsf-20060824.html</ref> There are 8 planets in the solar system. They are, in order of increasing distance from the sun:<ref>The third grade</ref>
*[[Mercury]]
*[[Venus]]
*[[Earth]]
*[[Mars]]
*[[Jupiter]]
*[[Saturn]]
*[[Uranus]]
*[[Neptune]]

The first four planets are [[terrestrial planet]]s, the last 4 planets are jovian planets. Terrestrial planets are small in size, have high densities, and consist of rocky materials. Jovian planets are large in size, have low densities, and consist of gaseous materials.

==Dwarf Planets==
A [[dwarf planet]] is an object that orbits the sun and has a round shape. The crucial difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is that a dwarf planet is not large enough to clear the neighborhood of its orbit. Currently recognized dwarf planets are:<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/dwarf-planet</ref>
*[[Pluto]][[#Note|[1]]]
*[[Eris]]
*[[Ceres]]
*[[Makemake]]
*[[Haumea]]

===Note===
[1]Pluto was considered a planet until 2006.<ref>http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/261408.html</ref>

==Asteroids==
[[Asteroid]]s are irregularly shaped chunks of rocks in the solar system. They exist mostly in 2 places:

*The [[asteroid belt]], which is between the orbits of [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]]
*The [[Kuiper belt]], which shares its orbit with [[Pluto]]

==Comets==
[[Comets]] are astral bodies composed of dust and ice. As they approach the sun the increased temperature causes them to heat and shoot off jets of material, forming a "tail" pointing straight towards the sun. Most comets are in circular orbits out in the Oort cloud beyond Pluto. Some are in an [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will repeatedly enter orbits near the sun until they have evaporated. Some are in a [[hyperbola|hyperbolic]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will only come into the solar system once and will never return, moving on to other solar systems until they have evaporated or are captured in an elliptical orbit.
==Scientific dating==
The closest material we have to hand, rocks formed in Earth's crust, has been subject to chemical alteration over time from volcanic action, so for accurate dating scientists use meteorites which have been free flying for billions of years before entering our atmosphere. Mass spectrometers are used to accurately identify and measure the different atomic isotopes making up a core sample from a meteorite. Different [[radiometric dating]] techniques from the same sample are used as a guard against possible contamination. The isotopic ratios of the sample correspond to the degree of atomic decay, accurately measuring the sample's age.

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

== See also ==

*[[Milky Way Galaxy]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
{{Solarsystem}}

Liberal

2012-09-10T01:31:09Z

AcomaMagic: added other info from reference and fixed bit

September 11, 2001 attacks

2012-09-10T01:24:56Z

AcomaMagic: international effort

[[Image:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The view of the burning towers of the World Trade Center from Staten Island, New York City, September 11, 2001]]
[[File:Pentagon sept11.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The damage to the Pentagon, Washington D.C., September 11, 2001]]
The '''Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001''' occurred when [[al Qaeda]], [[Islam|Islamic extremists]] hijacked four transcontinental airliners and used them to strike targets in the [[United States]]; two aircraft destroyed the twin towers of the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]]; the third crashed into a portion of the [[Pentagon]] in Washington, D.C.; and the fourth aircraft - in which the hijackers are believed to have targeted the White House or the Capitol Building - crashed into an empty field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after passengers fought back to re-take control.

The sheer audacity of the attack and the heavy loss of life that resulted from it caused the U.S. government to declare a [[War on Terror]] with the determination to hunt down terrorists world-wide; within two months of September 11, [[Afghanistan]] was completely occupied by Coalition forces, driving the ruling Islamo-fascist [[Taliban]] from power and causing the head of al Qaeda and the man who personally approved the attacks - [[Osama bin Laden]] - to flee into hiding.

==The Hijacking==
All 19 hijackers boarded the planes on the morning of September 11, having carefully chosen flights whose routes would be transcontinental. Two planes flew out of Boston's Logan Airport, one flew from Washington's Dulles International Airport, and the fourth left an airport in Newark, New Jersey.

===New York City===
[[File:911rtrs 468x683.jpg|right|200px|thumb|United Airlines Flight 175 about to crash into the south tower of of the World Trade Center as the north tower burns from the crash of American Airlines Flight 11.]]
American Airlines Flight 11 left Logan Airport around 8 AM, carrying 11 crew and 81 passengers; its destination was Los Angeles, California. United Airlines Flight 175 left Logan a few minutes later, carrying 9 crew and 56 passengers, and also on a flight to Los Angeles. Both aircraft were the 767-200, manufactured by the Boeing Company.

At 8:25 AM Boston air traffic controllers heard a strange voice from Flight 11: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport." The plane then headed south toward New York City; at 8:46 AM the plane crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center between the 93 and 99th floors. Sixteen minutes later, at 9:03 AM, Flight 175 crashed into the south tower - at a greater speed and more oblique angle - between the 77th and 85th floors.

The impact of the crashes took out any hope of getting to victims and survivors on the affected floors and the floors above; many people desperate to get away from the smoke and fire jumped. Both towers were designed to survive the impact of a 1960s-era jet, but the Boeing 767 was larger and carried more fuel; it was determined later that the heat from the burning fuel weakened the central steel structure and supports. At 9:59 am the south tower collasped; the upper floors had lost support in the damaged area and fell - pancake style - to the ground. At 10:29 AM the north tower fell in a similar manner. The death toll was around 2,750, including more than 300 firefighters and 100 police officers and other rescue workers.

The building at 7 World Trade Center, commonly abbreviated as WTC7, also collapsed in the attacks. This collapse is frequently cited in various [[9/11 conspiracy theories|conspiracy theories]].

===Washington, D.C.===
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, left Dulles at 8:20 AM, carrying 6 crew and 58 passengers on a flight to Los Angeles. Forty minutes later the aircraft had turned back toward Washington; at 9:37 it crashed at high-speed into the west side of the Pentagon, killing a total of 184 people. Despite being built of reinforced concrete, the aircraft was able to penetrate to the third concentric ring of the building.

===Shanksville, Pennsylvania===
[[File:ShanksvilleSept11.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Val McClatchey snapped this photo moments after Flight 93 hit the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.]]
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200, left Newark at 8:40 AM, with a destination of San Francisco. Unlike the other planes which had four hijackers each, Flight 93 had three; it also had passengers who, through onboard phone calls, learned of the previous hijackings and crashes and determined to wrest control of the aircraft back from the terrorists. Turned towards Washington, the plane ended up crashing in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM, the only one of the aircraft which failed to reach its target. Among the recorded conversations between the passengers and phone operators was the phrase "Let's roll" by Todd Beamer, made just before he set down his phone and took action with the other passengers involved; Beamer's last phrase would become a rallying cry in the coming war on terrorism.

===Ground Casualties===
The total loss of life is constantly being reevaluated to account for wrongly reported missing persons and, in some cases, occurrences of fraud. Estimates of more than 6,000 deaths were announced following the attacks. The current estimate is 2,996 fatalities as a direct result of the attacks. About 500 foreign nationals from over 90 countries are believed to have died in the attack.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

The Department of Defense reported the deaths of 125 people at The Pentagon. The aftermath of the World Trade Center towers collapsing created a good deal of confusion and has been the main source of discrepancies in casualty estimates. As of October 29, 2003, New York City reported 2605 deaths in the attacks, not counting the passengers and crew of the planes. <ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

As a matter of course, the deaths of the 19 [[suicide|hijackers]] are not included in these casualty totals.

===Economic Impact===
The material costs of the attacks are well in excess of one hundred billion US dollars. Factoring in stock market losses, loss of revenue in New York City, loss of jobs, impact on air travel, and heightened security, some estimate the cost approaches two trillion dollars.<ref>[http://www.iags.org/costof911.html The Cost of September 11] Institute for the Analysis of Global Security</ref>

Some estimates of the cost of executing the plan place it in the $400,000-$500,000 range, making it an extremely "profitable" operation for al-Qaeda. <ref>[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm The 9/11 Commission Report]</ref>

==The Suspects==
Suspicion fell on Osama bin Laden and his [[Islam|Islamic extremist]] al-Qaeda organization almost immediately. Known to have harbored hatred for the United States since the basing of U.S. fighters and other military personnel in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, bin Laden has tried "To kill Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it," <ref>[http://awildernessvoice.com/Mohammed.html]</ref>, and often succeeding. In four previous attacks, bin Laden's operatives
*killed 6 in a bomb explosion in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993;
*killed 19 soldiers in 1996 at a military housing complex in Saudi Arabia;
*killed more than 200 people in the simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania;
*killed 17 sailors by putting an explosives-laden boat next to USS ''Cole'' while that destroyer was refueling in Yemen in 2000.

His personal fortune, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has enabled him to finance well-coordinated operations, including the training of the hijackers in close-quarter fighting, commandeering of aircraft, and ironically to bankroll their education in American flight schools.

==Social Impacts==

Following the attacks there was a strong surge of patriotism in virtually all facets of American society. The government, being aware that the most deadly attack ever on American soil could stir up animosity against the ethnic or religious group of the perpetrators, went out of its way along with the media to separate Islam from the actions taken by its more radical adherents, referring to it at multiple times as a "religion of love". While people of Middle Eastern decent and adherents of Islam were concerned at first, the overall effect of hostility towards these groups was barely noticeable. Although there were literally millions of Muslims in America out of a total population of 300 million who could have sought out reprisals, in an entire year less than 500 cases of aggression of verbal hostility were reported. Muslims responded to the magnanimous treatment they received from Americans by seeking to construct an insulting and offensive [[Ground Zero Mosque]].

==Consequences of the Attacks on U.S. Policy==
===Domestic Policy===

The attacks were a direct or indirect cause of massive changes in United States domestic policy. Most notably, the ''Homeland Security Act of 2002'' "established a [[Department of Homeland Security]], as an executive department of the United States" <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf H.R. 5005 The Homeland Security Act]</ref>, a cabinet level position. One of the tools implemented by the Department is the [[Homeland Security Advisory System]], a color coded advisory system meant to "establish a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people." <ref>[http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/laws/ DHS Laws and Regulations] Department of Homeland Security</ref>

Another notable result of the attacks was the ''[[USA PATRIOT Act|USA PATRIOT Act of 2001]]'' ('''U'''niting and '''S'''trengthening '''A'''merica by '''P'''roviding '''A'''ppropriate '''T'''ools '''R'''equired to '''I'''ntercept and '''O'''bstruct '''T'''errorism). The act was written to expand the authority of law enforcement and the justice system in the pursuit of terrorism suspects.<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: ''The USA PATRIOT Act''] Library of Congress</ref>

===Foreign Policy===

In response to the attacks, the United States declared a [[War on Terror]], which comprises United States military action in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]] as well as a significant increase in intelligence gathering and a new outlook on foreign relations.

==Conspiracy Theories==

''Main article: [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]''

[[Image:393px-WTC-remnant highres.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Remains of the South Tower, September 13, 2001.]]
Many conspiracy theories have sprouted up from the events of September 11, 2001, including the "Loose Change" movies seen on YouTube.<ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061002/alterman Lying About 9/11? Easy as [[ABC]]], Eric Alterman, ''The Nation'', September 14, 2006 (October 2, 2006 issue).</ref> These movies have been comprehensively disproven by independent experts.<ref>[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html "Debunking The 9/11 Myths"] ''Popular Mechanics'', Mar. 2005 Cover Story</ref> Prominent endorsers of such theories include talk show host [[Rosie O'Donnell]] as well as actor [[Charlie Sheen]]. A third of the American public has bought into the idea of some sort of role by federal officials. {{fact}} This view is much more common among those who get their news solely from the internet and is rare for those who read newspapers or watch the news on regular television. {{fact}}

==See Also==
*[[Suicide bomber: a personal account]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf The 9/11 Commission Report]
*[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers], [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|NIST]].
*[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/index.html September 11: Chronology of Terror] at CNN.com
*[http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm Federal Bureau of Investigations PENTTBOM Press Release]
*[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html Lists of Victims] at CNN.com

==Additional Information==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The Internet Archive's file of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and BBC broadcasts for Sept 11-13, 2001]
*[http://www.televisionarchive.org/ Television Archive of news broadcasts for 9/11]

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

{{Terrorism}}
[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Riots and terrorist incidents in the United States]]
[[Category:Afghanistan War]]

Talk:Evolution

2012-09-09T13:48:44Z

AcomaMagic: /* Neutrality */ fixes

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths.

== Issues ==
There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. [[User:Crzyclarks|Crzyclarks]] 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

This article needs to be unprotected. Only admins seem to be able to edit and from what I've seen, all admins are YEC's. The section above this one offers improvements to the article, yet it was removed by an admin and the fixes and suggested content still has not been implemented. In short, the article is embarrassing for the website and makes its motto look like a joke. Literally a joke made to poke fun at itself. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:49, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

2012-09-09T12:49:26Z

AcomaMagic: /* Neutrality */ new section

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths.

== Issues ==
There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. [[User:Crzyclarks|Crzyclarks]] 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

This article needed to be unprotected. Only admins seem to be able to edit and from what I've seen, all admins are YEC's. The section above this one offer improvements to the article, yet it was removed by an admin and the fixes and suggested content still has not been implemented. In short, the article is embarrassing for the website and makes its motto look like a joke. Literally a joke made to poke fun at itself. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:49, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Jerry Falwell

2012-09-09T12:14:45Z

AcomaMagic: /* Controversy */ removed info from controversy section that was just praising him. Ridiculous. Added controversy about 9/11 statement

[[Image:Jfalwell.jpg|thumb|250px|Right|The Reverend Jerry Falwell 1933-2007]]
'''Jerry Falwell''' (August 11, 1933 – May 15, 2007) was a politically active [[United States|American]] evangelical, and one of the biggest influences on the conservative movement in the late 20th century and a leader in gaining Christian Evangelical support for Israel. <ref>[http://www.cmep.org/Alerts/2004March31.htm Washington Post on Evangelical-Israeli connection,] Bill Broadway, ''Washington Post'', March 27, 2004.</ref> Falwell was born on August 11, 1933 along with his twin brother, Gene. Jerry and Gene were the youngest children in a family of 5. Young Jerry Falwell was recognized for his incredible intellect at a young age, skipping the second grade at Mountain View Elementary School. He held firm on this intelligence, even finding a way to obtain his driver's license at the age of 13 - 3 years before he was legally eligible.

==Early years==

During his teen years, Falwell excelled in athletic endeavors. During high school Falwell played [[football]], [[basketball]] and [[baseball]]. He valued athletics for their numerous benefits: teamwork, coordination, fitness and overall health.

Dr. Falwell became a committed Christian on January 20, 1952 while enrolled at [[Lynchburg College]]. He bought his first [[Bible]] the day after his [[baptism]], and carried it with him wherever he went. After graduating Lynchburg College, Falwell enrolled in [[Baptist Bible College]] in [[Missouri]], later joining the vaulted rank of [[clergy]]. [http://www.falwell.com/meet_dr_falwell.php] In 1956, he founded Thomas Road Baptist Church in an abandoned bottling plant, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/jerry_falwell;_ylt=Av1Rxhr4jqj67i6szuF7386s0NUE] and today the church has 22,000 members.

==Ministry==

In 1971, Falwell founded [[Liberty University]] in Lynchburg, [[Virginia]]. The University provides an opportunity for students to gain the benefits of a rich and diverse academic environment while simultaneously offering the opportunity to become closer to [[God]].
==Moral Majority==
In June of 1979, Dr. Falwell organized the [[Moral Majority]], a coalition of groups whose mailing lists reached over 100,000 clergy representing over 7 million conservative, religious Americans. The Moral Majority, part of the [[Religious Right]], organized a series of voting drives and political demonstrations to advance their conservative point of view and enhance the moral and religious attitudes of the nation. It is best known for supporting [[Ronald Reagan]]'s election in 1980, and registering millions of voters to act on his behalf. The Moral Majority played little role during the Reagan years; Falwell stepped down as its leader in 1987 and it was disbanded in 1989.

==Controversy==
Falwell is well known outside of Evangelical circles for his claim, made on "The 700 Club" on September 13th of 2001 that it was not just [[al Qaeda]] that was to blame for the terrorist attacks of [[9/11]]. He said, ""I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" His statement was severely criticized and Falwell apologized soon after. <ref>CNN article on the statement[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]</ref>

== Obesity ==

[[File:Brain2.jpg|right|thumb|240px|Medical research indicates that excess weight impairs brain function.<ref>
*[http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/18/25.1.full]
*[http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/08/25/as-waistlines-widen-brains-shrink.html]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167850]
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100714112832.htm]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/2568718/]</ref>]]
Despite being a Christian and knowing that the Bible declares gluttony to be a sin, Falwell had issues with being overweight. According to medical science, there are a significant number of physical and mental health related problems associated with being overweight.

== Personal Life ==

Reverend Falwell was married to Mrs. Macel Falwell. The two tied the proverbial knot on April 12, 1958. The couple had three children: Jerry Jr., Jonathan and Jeannie. Jerry is currently an [[attorney]] and Vice-Chancellor at Liberty University. Jonathan is an attorney and pastor in Lynchburg, Virginia. Jeannie is a [[surgeon]] in Virginia.

Reverend Falwell passed away on May 15, 2007.

{{Conservatism}}

==Reference==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Falwell, Jerry}}
[[Category:Religious People]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-09-09T12:08:31Z

AcomaMagic: /* Title of article */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 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.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== 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. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

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. --[[User:Jzy|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:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

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.
--[[User:Jzy|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.--[[User:Jpatt|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. --[[User:Jzy|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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|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:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

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.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

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

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''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.</ref> ''"[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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

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 :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|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. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== 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?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|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. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|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. [[User:AcomaMagic|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? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|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. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Solar System

2012-09-09T12:02:17Z

AcomaMagic: /* Age of solar system */ reply

Solar System

2012-09-09T12:00:59Z

AcomaMagic: added YEC view

According to the scientific consensus, the Solar System consists of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound in orbit around it, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.6 billion years ago.

[[Young Earth Creationists]] reject this and believe it was made by a deity less than 10,000 years ago. However, support for this theory is virtually nil among scientists.

==Planets==
A [[planet]] is defined as an object that orbits the [[sun]], is massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and is dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood. <ref>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planetsf-20060824.html</ref> There are 8 planets in the solar system. They are, in order of increasing distance from the sun:<ref>The third grade</ref>
*[[Mercury]]
*[[Venus]]
*[[Earth]]
*[[Mars]]
*[[Jupiter]]
*[[Saturn]]
*[[Uranus]]
*[[Neptune]]

The first four planets are [[terrestrial planet]]s, the last 4 planets are jovian planets. Terrestrial planets are small in size, have high densities, and consist of rocky materials. Jovian planets are large in size, have low densities, and consist of gaseous materials.

==Dwarf Planets==
A [[dwarf planet]] is an object that orbits the sun and has a round shape. The crucial difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is that a dwarf planet is not large enough to clear the neighborhood of its orbit. Currently recognized dwarf planets are:<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/dwarf-planet</ref>
*[[Pluto]][[#Note|[1]]]
*[[Eris]]
*[[Ceres]]
*[[Makemake]]
*[[Haumea]]

===Note===
[1]Pluto was considered a planet until 2006.<ref>http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/261408.html</ref>

==Asteroids==
[[Asteroid]]s are irregularly shaped chunks of rocks in the solar system. They exist mostly in 2 places:

*The [[asteroid belt]], which is between the orbits of [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]]
*The [[Kuiper belt]], which shares its orbit with [[Pluto]]

==Comets==
[[Comets]] are astral bodies composed of dust and ice. As they approach the sun the increased temperature causes them to heat and shoot off jets of material, forming a "tail" pointing straight towards the sun. Most comets are in circular orbits out in the Oort cloud beyond Pluto. Some are in an [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will repeatedly enter orbits near the sun until they have evaporated. Some are in a [[hyperbola|hyperbolic]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will only come into the solar system once and will never return, moving on to other solar systems until they have evaporated or are captured in an elliptical orbit.

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

== See also ==

[[Milky Way Galaxy]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
{{Solarsystem}}

Talk:Solar System

2012-08-25T19:59:14Z

AcomaMagic: /* removal of origin */ new section

The template is covering up the text. I removed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
: Could you please post a screen shot so that I can look at how it renders and make appropriate changes to the table in the template? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't know what your talking about but the text of the article is being covered up by that thing you want to put in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::It isn't appearing like that on my screen, or Mtur's screen, apparently. Press "print screen", paste it in to MS paint, upload to Photobucket (or Imageshack), and then link us to the image. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't have the software above, hoji. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::: Could you say what operating system and browser are you using? It would go a ways to finding the problem (to see if someone else can recreate it) and finding a screen capture program for you to use. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think I fixed it; the template was using "float; 'absolute'" at 15px from the right. So it was at an absolute location, not relative to the rest of the content. I think that fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:53, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== On the capitalization of Solar System ==

From the [http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html International Astronomical Union]
<blockquote>
The IAU formally recommends that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.
</blockquote>
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fixedearth.com ==

That fixedearth site doesn't look like a very reliable resource.... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Well, [[liberal logic|logically]] you might think that, but... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
::That joke's not really that funny anymore. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:08, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:::You're right. I'm sorry HelpJazz. :-( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Wasn't trying to be mean :( Look now I'm sad, too! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::XD Well sometimes I joke a bit too much. I do think you're a cool guy though. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Age of solar system==

If you have sources for [[theory|theories]] about the age of the solar system, please include this information in a section of the article '''before''' changing the intro. Thanks from a senior editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

== removal of origin ==

I added the origin of solar systems but people keep reverting. Annoyingly, they don't even give a reason. Provide one please. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:59, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Galaxy

2012-08-25T19:56:08Z

AcomaMagic: added that it's hundreds of billions

[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral galaxy ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
A '''galaxy''' is a massive ensemble of tens of millions to trillions of [[star]]s some with associated [[planet]]s and planetary systems, all interacting through the [[gravity|gravitational force]], [[orbit]]ing around a common center.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> The observable [[universe]] contains hundreds of billions of galaxies. Some scholars theorize that at the center of every galaxy lies a super massive [[black hole]]. The [[Sun]], the [[Earth]] and our [[Solar System]] are in the [[Milky Way]] galaxy.

== Age Dispute ==
[[Young earth creationism|Many scientists]] assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of galaxy formation are unsupportable and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences22.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5065</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/galaxy.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> In 1988, fifty cosmologists attended a conference which focused on galaxy formation. After summarizing the observational data, two of the most respected scientists estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct was about 1 out of 100. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> In 1999, J. Bland-Hawthorn wrote in the science journal [[Nature]] the following:

"In 1977, [[Stephen Weinberg]] observed that "the theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution". Although the past two decades have seen considerable progress, many questions remain." <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6741/full/400220a0.html</ref>

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>
</blockquote>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] wrote the following regarding a 2005 article in [[Science News]] the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril," the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men," Ron Cowen quipped. "That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos."....
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, "the grand finale came first" in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref>
</blockquote>

Young earth creationists also cite the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“In its simplest form, the [[Big Bang theory|big bang]] scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.” Ivars Peterson, Science News, "Seeding the universe: how did matter assemble itself into the giant filaments, clusters, bubbles and walls of galaxies that now fill the universe?" March 24, 1990, p. 184. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n12_v137/ai_8878747</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“It [the Great Wall, composed of tens of thousands of galaxies] is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” [[Science (journal)|Science]], Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>
</blockquote>

==See Also==
[[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Solar System

2012-08-25T19:53:42Z

AcomaMagic: Undo revision 1000924 by JamesWilson (talk) I think mine sounds better. It explains the origin. Also, you didn't even write a reason

The Solar System consists of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound in orbit around it, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.6 billion years ago.

==Planets==
A [[planet]] is defined as an object that orbits the [[sun]], is massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and is dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood. <ref>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planetsf-20060824.html</ref> There are 8 planets in the solar system. They are, in order of increasing distance from the sun:<ref>The third grade</ref>
*[[Mercury]]
*[[Venus]]
*[[Earth]]
*[[Mars]]
*[[Jupiter]]
*[[Saturn]]
*[[Uranus]]
*[[Neptune]]

The first four planets are [[terrestrial planet]]s, the last 4 planets are jovian planets. Terrestrial planets are small in size, have high densities, and consist of rocky materials. Jovian planets are large in size, have low densities, and consist of gaseous materials.

==Dwarf Planets==
A [[dwarf planet]] is an object that orbits the sun and has a round shape. The crucial difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is that a dwarf planet is not large enough to clear the neighborhood of its orbit. Currently recognized dwarf planets are:<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/dwarf-planet</ref>
*[[Pluto]][[#Note|[1]]]
*[[Eris]]
*[[Ceres]]
*[[Makemake]]
*[[Haumea]]

===Note===
[1]Pluto was considered a planet until 2006.<ref>http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/261408.html</ref>

==Asteroids==
[[Asteroid]]s are irregularly shaped chunks of rocks in the solar system. They exist mostly in 2 places:

*The [[asteroid belt]], which is between the orbits of [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]]
*The [[Kuiper belt]], which shares its orbit with [[Pluto]]

==Comets==
[[Comets]] are astral bodies composed of dust and ice. As they approach the sun the increased temperature causes them to heat and shoot off jets of material, forming a "tail" pointing straight towards the sun. Most comets are in circular orbits out in the Oort cloud beyond Pluto. Some are in an [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will repeatedly enter orbits near the sun until they have evaporated. Some are in a [[hyperbola|hyperbolic]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will only come into the solar system once and will never return, moving on to other solar systems until they have evaporated or are captured in an elliptical orbit.

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

== See also ==

[[Milky Way Galaxy]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
{{Solarsystem}}

Talk:Obama's Religion

2012-08-18T19:31:02Z

AcomaMagic: /* Same-sex marriage */ new section

Is it not necessary to delete this talkpage? '''R7''' ~ [[User talk:R7|''Talk'']] 16:06, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why do you say that? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:13, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry for the late reaction, but this is an empty talkpage. Normally these things, without content, so far as I saw, are being deleted, or am I wrong? [[User:R7|R7]] 15:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hey guys! I'm sure this has been discussed before but I can't seem to find the discussion... maybe someone here could point me in the right direction? This article shows pretty conclusively that Obama is a Muslim, I'm not arguing that but... why does it matter? Isn't he entitled to his freedom of religion just like the rest of us? I mean, I disagree totally with his policies bordering on socialistic but this is something I've never understood. (Unless of course he claims to be christian, that would be different). Thanks! [[User:GregorySKroeger|Gregory]] [[Special:Contributions/GregorySKroeger|S.]] [[User talk:GregorySKroeger|Kroeger]] 13:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)Greg

Hello all! Now I am not trying to disagree with this article but I just found a great Q&A from a trustworthy conservitive Christian website that seems to actually paint Obama as a Christian. What are your thoughts on the article? (The link is below)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

== Fewer than 1% muslims leave the faith applies globally, not in the usa ==

Fewer than 1% muslims leave the Muslims faith applies globally, not in the usa. In the USA people switch religions more frequently than in many places. Plus, what matters is the evidence for Obama in particular and the historical context of the evidence. For example, not many people rise from the dead in history, but the evidence for the resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]] is very good. I do not know enough about Obama's history to know if he was ever a Muslim. If he was a Muslim, I would like to know at what age. It does seem odd that he attended Wright's church and had his daughter baptised if he was a Muslim. Plus, Obama eats pork and drinks alcohol. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Also, this sentence is too broad: "Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim." It clearly ignores his black liberation theology church attendance, his atheist mother, Columbia and Harvard education and his secular progressive like stances on social issues (homosexuality, etc.). Obama fits a heretical liberal Christianity outlook far more than a Muslim outlook. Historical evidence [http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&pg=PR19&lpg=PR19&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought+rules&source=bl&ots=uG5YbjPDO9&sig=o166eo168lp9fXU20YnBW_T-s1I&hl=en&ei=XzFETtiDN4ng0QGkpIjzCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false is weighed in context] and not through cherry picking. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==This article is more harmful than good for this project==

The text clearly says that Barak may be the first Islamic president, there follows a list of mostly straw grasping and "synthesis" of assetions based on certain evidence. I am no fan of Obama, but the ecmaples is SO flawed I'm beginning to think it was started by a troll as '''a parody to debase the authority of this encyclopedia'''. I have only taken the comments below but the whole article, being based on the premise that Obam is Islamic, is on very unstable ground, in fact much of it seems an errand in silliness, but let's disucss it:
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by '''Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because '''I am one of them'''
:Synthesis: shows that he has a positive opinion of the input of muslims, and proves that he has either or both lived in muslim countries and had muslims in his family. Does not provide evidence of being Islamic
*Obama's wife Michelle does not accompany him to Muslim nations because [[Sharia law]] would apply to her there; on a presidential trip she was with him until France, but then returned home.
:Synthesis again – many men visiting muslim countries would be less than likely to want their wives there to be subject to their customs. If anything it maybe evidence counter to the point
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
:So? 1% do (if we assume the statistic is correct to start with in a western country which I doubt)
*During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes.
:I learned about it for three years as part of general Social and Religious Studies in High School. I am a Christian and not a muslim. If I had muslims in my family, I would perhaps be even more curious from an accademic point of view.
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''',
:Hussein is an Arabic name. Changing a name on conversion is common in Islam but less common in christisanity so nothing can be inferred , especially as his father had that name so he is likely to retain it for family reasons
::This one always amuses me. My father's family was from Germany, and my great-grandfather shared first names with Hitler. My father was named after his grandfather, and is about as far from a Nazi as can be. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:25, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:: Indeed - my aunt was born a Christian, then married my Jewish uncle and converted. But she didn't change her name from Christina. And that's hardly a Jewish name. Of course, now she's divorced from my uncle and I don't know if she went back to Christianity or not, but she's still named Christina. And there's also a convert in my synagogue named "Christian". That's about as un-Jewish a name as you can get right there. For that matter, my grandmother made a big deal about how I had the same name as a former Pope, although given that she named one of her sons Mark, I'm guessing that's just because she was mad my parents didn't name me after her late husband. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:27, 21 February 2012 (EST)
*Obama mentioned his religion as "[[my Muslim faith]]."
:Out of context – past tense
*He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."
:Empathy and a positive opinion do not make you part of the club.
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
:See above
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth
:I was inspired and still am by Gandhi – he was not a Christian, I am.
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one. Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.
:Dimplomatic lingusitc trait from someone with experience of a culture?
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting.
:Like lots of young people, it is often hard to get them interested.
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the [[Spanish]] ''renegado'', which originally meant "Christian turned Muslim."<
:Golly it gets even more tenuous. Do we really always think of the derivations of words when we use them?
[[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 14:08, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:Ok, then I will edit the article without deviating from its title. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 09:13, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Prepared remarks" ==

Obama referenced Jesus as "a" Son of God in a speech given at a formal event. He reads his remarks from [[teleprompter]]s at such events. This should be distinguished from an interview, where words are chosen less carefully.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:06, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Blatant Slander ==

Conservapedia is going downhill. Virtually every piece of evidence on this page is either taken out of context or entirely irrelevant. Obama read a book written from a Muslim point of view. How does that prove he's a Muslim. Does reading the book of Exodus make me Jewish because it's from Moses's point of view?

Obama's been doing a poor job, but you can point that out pretty easily without having to resort to a smear campaign. Don't sink to the liberal level. You guys are better than that--[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 20:34, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Trimmed examples ==

I removed the following examples from the article because, even if they are true, they serve as little to no evidence that Obama is Muslim:
*In prepared remarks in April 2012, Obama referred to Jesus as "a" Son of God rather than as "the" Son of God: "And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured—not just as '''''a'' Son of God''', but as a human being."[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-jesus-son-god]
*Obama's wife Michelle does not accompany him to Muslim nations because [[Sharia law]] would apply to her there; on a presidential trip she was with him until France, but then returned home.

Later on, I will be going through the lengthy list of arguments to trim and refine the page to the best arguments that can be made about this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:53, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

:Both are persuasive examples. Deletions of factual information are disfavored. Readers can decide whether something is persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
::I respectfully disagree. I will discuss each example in turn.
::*The first example has many more plausible explanations than that Obama is Muslim. My interpretation of the quote is that Obama is contrasting the '''role''' of Jesus as Son of God and as a fully human being. He appears to be expounding the truth that Christ suffered great pain and ultimately death as a human being so that our sins may be forgiven (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:21-25). Even if Obama meant to say "the" or nothing at all instead of "a", and even if the speech came in prepared remarks (which, incidentally, even if prepared, we don't know whether they are verbatim or merely an outline), anyone can have a slip of the tongue (ask Neil Armstrong!). But even if Obama meant to say '''a''' Son of God to expressly imply that God has more than one Son, this still would not demonstrate that he is a Muslim, because (as I understand it) Muslims believe that God has '''no''' incarnate son. Thus, this example cannot possibly demonstrate that Obama is Muslim. If it does provide any evidence at all contradicting his assertions that he is Christian, it still does nothing to support the alternative hypothesis that he is Muslim.
::*The second example can be attributed to cultural norms in Muslim countries. Where sharia law is practiced, women are marginalized. Thus, any man, Muslim, Christian, Jew, whoever, would take special considerations before bringing his wife to a country hostile to women. Under the same logic of this argument, my refusal to take friends into sketchy parts of the city where gangs reign would indicate that I am a gangster. Again, this argument is of little probative value.
::The issue I have is that when you have several weak examples, they make the rest of the examples look less strong in comparison. I know that, as a lawyer, you want to not only cover all the potential arguments of a case but also focus on your strongest arguments. I would respectfully suggest the same approach here, and I am willing to help with this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:18, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

== Same-sex marriage ==

Do many Muslims support same-sex marriage? [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:31, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-08-18T19:17:06Z

AcomaMagic: /* Title of article */ new section

Talk:Evolution

2012-08-18T18:48:35Z

AcomaMagic: question

Solar System

2012-08-18T18:43:03Z

AcomaMagic: added info about the origin