<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=PaulLaroque</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=PaulLaroque"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulLaroque"/>
	<updated>2026-09-23T02:07:06Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lie&amp;diff=680729</id>
		<title>Lie</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lie&amp;diff=680729"/>
		<updated>2009-07-04T02:34:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''lie''' is the deliberate fabrication or misrepresentation of the truth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lying in Religion==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lying is prohibited by [[God]] in the [[Ten Commandments]]; Revelation 21:8 states that all liars will go to [[hell]]. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Satan]] is described in many [[religion]]s as the Father of Lies.  However, this is typically regarded as hypocritical as the [[Bible]] is full of lies and [[fictional characters]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Ethics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fiction&amp;diff=680727</id>
		<title>Fiction</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fiction&amp;diff=680727"/>
		<updated>2009-07-04T02:30:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Fiction [[books]]''' are an invented or feigned [[narrative]] (an imaginative form of narrative).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|accessdate=2007-11-12|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/FICTION|format=HTML|language=English|work=Dictionary.com|title=fiction}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Fiction is one of the two most general categories in the hierarchy that books are classified in (the other being [[non-fiction]] - a composition that its authors believe to be truthful).  For example, the [[Bible]] is one of the most well known works of fiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fiction differs from [[lie|lying]] because the listener knows the story isn't true.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fiction| ]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sherlock_Holmes&amp;diff=680724</id>
		<title>Sherlock Holmes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sherlock_Holmes&amp;diff=680724"/>
		<updated>2009-07-04T02:27:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Adding link to Mycroft Holmes&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Holmes.png|right|thumb|Dr. Watson and Holmes by Signey Paget ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sherlock Holmes''' is one of the greatest and best-known [[fictional characters]] in English literature. He was the central character in fifty-six short stories and four novels written by Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]]. Holmes is a &amp;quot;consulting detective&amp;quot; specializing in crime, and the stories are told by his friend and chronicler, the famous [[Dr. John H. Watson]]. Holmes is known for using his amazing art of [[deduction]] to solve what seem to be unsolvable crimes--though he would be the first to tell anyone who asked, as he frequently tells Dr. Watson, that he is only observing &amp;quot;elementary&amp;quot; facts that anyone having eyes to see, would see just as well.  Frequently missed in sketches of Holmes' character, however, is the fact that he was a complete bore when it came to any subject but crime, and that he was addicted to the abuse of the drug [[morphine]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Study in Scarlet'', Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real-life Basis ==&lt;br /&gt;
The character of Holmes is likely based on Joseph Bell, a medical lecturer at the University of [[Edinburgh]], [[Scotland]]. Bell emphasized the observation of detail before making a diagnosis and was a pioneer of forensic science.  Conan Doyle worked for Bell as a clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Perry Internet Consulting. &amp;quot;Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Joseph Bell.&amp;quot; [http://www.siracd.com/work_bell.shtml The Chronicles of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]. 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
Of Holmes' early life and family, Conan Doyle said but little, though many dedicated fans have attempted to supply the details. Christopher Morley, founder of the first Sherlock Holmes fan club, &amp;quot;The Baker Street Irregulars,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Morley&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://www.sherlockian.net/societies/index.html Societies],&amp;quot; ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated the date of Holmes' birth at January 6, 1854.&amp;lt;ref name=World&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://www.sherlockian.net/world/index.html The World of Holmes and Watson],&amp;quot; ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sherlock Holmes is the younger by seven years of two brothers. The other brother, [[Mycroft Holmes]], has a reputation for having as much power of observation and deduction as does his brother Sherlock. But instead of being a consulting detective, Mycroft is a sort of minister-without-portfolio in Her Majesty's government ([[Victoria of the United Kingdom]])--and in fact Watson observes that &amp;quot;occasionally he ''is'' the British government.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Mycroft&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://www.sherlockian.net/world/mycroft.html The Brother of the Detective]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation as to the full extent, and the pedigree, of Holmes' family abounds. However, only Mycroft Holmes, which Conan Doyle specifically mentions, may be considered a canonical relative of his.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one love of Holmes' life was [[Irene Adler]], whom he called ''The'' Woman. Holmes never married.&amp;lt;ref name=World/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street in London.&amp;lt;ref name=World/&amp;gt; When he was not being a consulting detective, Holmes could be found playing his violin, or taking [[cocaine]], an addiction that he never fully conquered, but in later life was able to manage, with Watson's help.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;First fully disclosed in ''The Sign of Four'', Holmes injected &amp;quot;a seven-per-cent solution.&amp;quot; Then in ''The Adventure of the Missing Three-Quarter'', Watson discloses his efforts to bring Holmes' addiction under some semblance of control. Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://www.siracd.com/work_h_cocaine.shtml A Seven-Percent Solution],&amp;quot; ''The Chronicles of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle'', Perry Internet Consulting, 2007. Retrieved November 8, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original short stories and novels ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Novels:&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Study in Scarlet]]'' (1887)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Sign of Four]]'' (1890)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Hound of the Baskervilles]]'' (1902)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Valley of Fear]]'' (1915)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Short story collections:&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes]]''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes]]''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Return of Sherlock Holmes]]''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[His Last Bow]]'' also known as ''The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allusions to Holmes by other authors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherlock Holmes greatly influenced other writers of detective stories.  Some authors have written their own Holmes books. Larry Millett is one. These extra-canonical works fall into three broad categories:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Further adventures of Sherlock Holmes in the Victorian and Edwardian periods in which he lived. These include hypothetical stories that have Holmes investigating such real-life criminals as [[Jack the Ripper]], and at least one story (''[[The Seven Percent Solution]]'') in which Watson prevails upon Holmes to consult [[Sigmund Freud]] for help with his cocaine addiction.&lt;br /&gt;
# Adventures of Sherlock Holmes after he somehow finds himself in the late twentieth century after someone--usually Professor Moriarty--has had him cryogenically preserved against his will. In this same category one can include the adventures of amnesiacs who ''become'' Sherlock Holmes because of their own obsessions with the canonical works.&lt;br /&gt;
# Adventures of other putative members of Holmes' family. In this category also fall stories that have canonical characters behaving out-of-character.&amp;lt;ref name=Vlad&amp;gt;At least one writer of horror and [[science fiction]] has even suggested that Holmes is the nephew of [[Count Dracula]], also known as [[Vlad the Impaler]], through Vlad's brother [[Radu the Handsome]], on the theory that Vlad and Radu ''both'' became [[vampire]]s. See Fred Saberhagen, ''The Holmes-Dracula File'', Tor Books, 1978, ISBN 0812523849&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on modern culture ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recently a movement has sprung up to place a plaque on this residence, this although Holmes was a fictional character.  Several films and parodies have been made based on him as well.  One such parody is Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler from [[VeggieTales]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Copyright issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
The complete body of Sherlock Holmes' work is not yet in the public domain. The last canonical collection, ''The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes'', is still under [[copyright]] in the [[United States]]. This copyright will expire between 2016 and 2023, as per the terms of the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act]] of 1998.&amp;lt;ref name=ASU&amp;gt;Dennis S. Karjala, ''[http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/ Opposing Copyright Extension, Protecting the Public Domain],'' [[Arizona State University]], March 8, 2007. Retrieved April 20, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Estate of Dame Jean Conan Doyle owns the remaining US copyrights.&amp;lt;ref name=Copyright&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html Copyright],&amp;quot; ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, copyrights in [[Canada]] are already expired (since 1980), as are copyrights in the [[United Kingdom]] (expired 2000).&amp;lt;ref name=Copyright/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Portrayals of Holmes ==&lt;br /&gt;
Many different actors have portrayed Sherlock Holmes in a variety of [[motion picture]] and [[television]] projects. Perhaps the two actors who portrayed Holmes most often were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Basil Rathbone]], who portrayed Holmes in several films set in the middle twentieth century, when the films were made.  He also played Holmes on a weekly radio show from 1939 to 1945.&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Jeremy Brett]], who portrayed Holmes in adaptations, produced by [[John Hawkesworth]], of all four novels and fifty of the fifty-six short stories. Brett died before Hawkesworth could complete his grand project of adapting all of the Sherlock Holmes stories for [[television]]. Critics regard Brett's portrayal as the most definitive and realistic portrayal of Holmes ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:fictional characters]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fictional_characters&amp;diff=680722</id>
		<title>Fictional characters</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fictional_characters&amp;diff=680722"/>
		<updated>2009-07-04T02:23:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Created page with 'A '''fictional character''' is a someone who is imaginatively created for a work of art such as a play, movie or book.  Examples are Ishmael from Moby Dick, Bart ...'&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''fictional character''' is a someone who is imaginatively created for a work of art such as a [[play]], [[movie]] or [[book]].  Examples are Ishmael from [[Moby Dick]], Bart Simpson from [[The Simpsons]] and [[God]] from the [[bible]].&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651313</id>
		<title>Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651313"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T19:08:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Rearranged the order of the article&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{President&lt;br /&gt;
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=44&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=January 20, 2009&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=January 20, 2013&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Democrat&lt;br /&gt;
|vp=Joe Biden&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=George W. Bush&lt;br /&gt;
|next=&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=August 4, 1961&lt;br /&gt;
|age={{age|1961|8|4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=Described in this entry&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in [[Honolulu]] Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th president of the [[United States]], &lt;br /&gt;
and previously served as a first-term [[Democratic party|Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004-2008).  Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidential election&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; most of it raised from anonymous donors.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As President, Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of [[Israel]]'s Prime Minister,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-is-not-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam....-many-americans-have.../444572/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and for inclusion of [[Turkey]] in the [[European Union]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his [[Socialism|socialist]] idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.&amp;quot; [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT], N.Y. Post &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John McCain quipped during the campaign, &amp;quot;He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief.&amp;quot;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008.  The slogan &amp;quot;from each according to their ability to each according to their need&amp;quot; is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and could be the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama plans to introduce to the US when he is installed into office.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to or can not afford to purchase it themselves.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; To announce his trip to [[Berlin]] in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of [[Lenin]] and [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/31/the-la-times-looks-into-the-obama-che-iconcography-connection/ The LA Times looks into the Obama-Che iconcography connection] by Michelle Malkin &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/ &amp;quot;Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?&amp;quot;, Accuracy in Media.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while Obama has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama was nominated for president, criticized Obama as the &amp;quot;most committed&amp;quot; [[abortion]]-supporting candidate &amp;quot;since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama said &amp;quot;the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It &amp;quot;would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make [[partial-birth abortion]] legal again.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008.  Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] observed that Obama uses techniques of [[mind control]] in his speeches and campaign symbols.  One Obama speech declared, &amp;quot;a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mind control&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 .  The doctors observe that &amp;quot;Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life and education==&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama II was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years.  Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science.  Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School.  He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&amp;amp;scp=3&amp;amp;sq=Obama%201990&amp;amp;st=cse&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal career==&lt;br /&gt;
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill &amp;amp; Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today.  During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education.  ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlighted Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois &amp;quot;for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;quot;'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer,'&amp;quot; in Obama's hometown of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides.&amp;quot; [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and 16th most liberal in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published.  Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that &amp;quot;racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run ....  We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics.  ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a &amp;quot;new strategy&amp;quot; in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&amp;amp;page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bills co-sponsored ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website&amp;lt;obamasenate2010.gov&amp;gt; is now defunct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois.  His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future.  It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his &amp;quot;House Divided&amp;quot; speech.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html &amp;quot;Obama declares he's running for President&amp;quot;] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general.  Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors.  $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an &amp;quot;articulate&amp;quot; spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Chicago Sun-Times, &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, &lt;br /&gt;
April 29, 2007,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy &amp;quot;...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing.  After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted.  First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]].  Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions.  Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation.  Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era.  The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, &lt;br /&gt;
'''&amp;quot;America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.&amp;quot;''' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. &amp;quot;Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 6th, an [[AP]] article &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&amp;amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class.  According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign financing=== &lt;br /&gt;
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, &amp;quot;Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?,&amp;quot; ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Secrecy=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia Thesis paper&lt;br /&gt;
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Harvard]] College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Illinois State Senate records&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary&lt;br /&gt;
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers&lt;br /&gt;
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)&lt;br /&gt;
# Occidental College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate&lt;br /&gt;
# Record of baptism&lt;br /&gt;
# Selective Service Registration&lt;br /&gt;
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007&lt;br /&gt;
# Scholarly articles&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])&lt;br /&gt;
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the &amp;quot;largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tone===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running &amp;quot;the dirtiest campaign in American history.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. &amp;quot;Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division,&amp;quot; Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, &amp;quot;...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain &amp;quot;lost his bearings&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, &amp;quot;He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign (Ethan Winner has made a claim that he alone produced the video) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194180.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, &amp;quot;I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element.&amp;quot; Other eyewitness reports are harsher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Election==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote.  He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 127 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[www.cnn.com/election]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Positions and Qualifications ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is [[pro-abortion]].  The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the  mother's womb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{QuoteBox|&amp;quot;If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.&amp;quot;}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own.  Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take &amp;quot;extreme&amp;quot; positions or would use terrorist tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ...  Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.&amp;quot;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site &amp;quot;MoveOn.org&amp;quot; for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].  Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that &amp;quot;Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's &amp;quot;research&amp;quot; for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the [[Constitution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the &amp;quot;best student I ever had&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;most exciting research assistant.&amp;quot; [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office.  In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;aye&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;nay&amp;quot; nearly an astounding 130 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed.  A newspaper that favored Obama  took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]].  &amp;quot;Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ...  The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  The [[New York Times]] noted that &amp;quot;Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&amp;amp;ex=1358485200&amp;amp;en=bb179297e5f61acb&amp;amp;ei=5090&amp;amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;amp;emc=rss&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut,&amp;quot; the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama often makes reference to his &amp;quot;two decades of experience&amp;quot; in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist&amp;quot;.]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Which matches the fact that during his campaign, his staff were discovered on numerous occasions to have Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist guerrilla/murderer [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/obama_workers_c.html Obama Workers' Che Guevara Poster Was No Fluke] from Moonbattery&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] calls Obama a &amp;quot;radical communist.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.] NewsMax, February 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's views on [[gun control]] are focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Kopel, &amp;quot;The Democrats and Gun Control,&amp;quot; Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he &amp;quot;never saw or approved the questionnaire,&amp;quot; and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has said, &amp;quot;Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as &amp;quot;an age-appropriate manner&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten.&amp;quot; [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way.  In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot;. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'.  Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, &amp;quot;There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy,&amp;quot; Obama said &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies,&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mcca)n/]`Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to &amp;quot;John McCain's President, George W. Bush&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is for a one-world government unaccountable to the American people, a threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence. He said &amp;quot;for all nations in the world to come together to build a stronger, global regime&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=94380]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreign policy experience ==&lt;br /&gt;
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that &amp;quot;foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident&amp;quot; and then cited &amp;quot;having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa&amp;quot;. He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious affiliations==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tucc.org/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. &lt;br /&gt;
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blamed the media &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, stating “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...&amp;quot;, and called Wright's rhetoric &amp;quot;&amp;quot;a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's &amp;quot;Rants&amp;quot;''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements &amp;quot;G-d damn America&amp;quot; and describing the September 11th attacks, he said &amp;quot;We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying &amp;quot;We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside.&amp;quot;}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Published criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who made a racially insensitive remark&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, &amp;quot;The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as &amp;quot;miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of &amp;quot;mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners&amp;quot; on the campaign trail.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set &amp;quot;an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama is likely the first Muslim President==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|left|thumb|President-Elect Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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'''.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm.  During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which most Christians would not retain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion.  For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: &amp;quot;Cristiano&amp;quot;.[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814]  When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to &amp;quot;Paul&amp;quot;; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].  &amp;quot;It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion&amp;quot;[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;[[my Muslim faith]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama declared, &amp;quot;John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &amp;quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&amp;quot; and recited &amp;quot;with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent&amp;quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, &amp;quot;Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78323]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &amp;quot;The Post-American World&amp;quot; by [[Fareed Zakaria]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; rather than the common American one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama repeatedly pronounced &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;Pokiston&amp;quot; in the first presidential debate.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became &amp;quot;churched&amp;quot; in a 2007 speech: &amp;quot;It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot;.  &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; 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'', meaning &amp;quot;Christian turned Muslim.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;President-elect [[Barack Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Obama_to_take_oath_using_middle_name_/articleshow/3813120.cms&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/politics/main4660590.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4660590&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009]]&lt;br /&gt;
*'''At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, &amp;quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &amp;quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=483326&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, there is a vast, inexorable difference between bending down to receive a medal as Bush did and bowing in deference to a foreign leader as Obama did.)&lt;br /&gt;
*In his speech to the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, Obama stated, &amp;quot;We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world - including in my own country. 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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a &amp;quot;confirmed [[atheist]]&amp;quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991, nor of Barack Obama's joining of a Mosque (The Islamic house of worship) at any time in his life.  Finally, Obama abruptly left his radical Christian church in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. On April 7, 2009, Obama visited a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c2e3700ab4e271bc32827b0fccfe560b.421&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama and Elitism and Ayers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; Americans.  Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied &amp;quot;it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I &amp;quot;didn't say it as well as I should have.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&amp;amp;ElectionID=28&amp;amp;OfficeID=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he &amp;quot;worked his way through college and Harvard Law.&amp;quot; This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would.  In his first television interview after becoming president, Obama declared that &amp;quot;all too often the United States starts by dictating.&amp;quot;  Earlier, when Obama gave his acceptance speech, he said &amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl135]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Author and blogger Jack Cashill requisitioned a comparison of the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres may have ghostwritten Dreams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father&amp;quot;?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book; also he wrote &amp;quot;None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams,&amp;quot; the experienced analyst found &amp;quot;a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples&amp;quot; that he processed.  He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book.  A philosophy professor from England disagreed.[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=77815]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ayers admitted that he was &amp;quot;guilty as hell&amp;quot; in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he &amp;quot;should have done more.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Insights==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as &amp;quot;blow&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;pot&amp;quot; respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him.  In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians.&amp;quot; [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama said that &amp;quot;[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.&amp;quot;  In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as &amp;quot;the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his famous 2002 speech&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot; and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign &amp;quot;is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Charitable Giving==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year.  Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother.  According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&amp;amp;BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down.  She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United states it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the united states. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Statements==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, &amp;quot;I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.&amp;quot; (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Birth Certificate Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
During  the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth certificate, claiming that it is false and that he is ineligible for Presidency. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as &lt;br /&gt;
authentic.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The site stated, &amp;quot;FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.&amp;quot;  In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number.  The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of Hawaii announced that the &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; document is legitimate and official. Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body, they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Critics rightfully point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; from Hawaii. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92810 Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge] WND, March 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Schultz]] with the [[We The People Foundation]] said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He... has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Nancy Salvato]] with [[BasicsProject|BasicsProject.org]] perhaps put it best: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth... not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama Administration‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama doublespeak]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama inauguration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama's religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&amp;amp;in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Dont Vote For Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack Hussein}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{USPresidents}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Obama Administration]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651270</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651270"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T16:40:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Argument for Obama being a Muslim */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back.  It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources.  Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations.  I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we have an honest discussion about this section.  There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;[16]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true.  This doesn't make him Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is misleading to say the least.  Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia.  Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen.  -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[21]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context.  He said &amp;quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&amp;quot;.  Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim.  If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;[22]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, it probably is &amp;quot;compatible with the modern world&amp;quot;.  Why is this evidence he is Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could go on but I am getting tired of this.  I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations.  Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article?  Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first.  Early life and legal career and that stuff.  And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody.  I welcome any comments.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too.  I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you.  [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian.  It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]].  Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement.  Biographical information first and then other issues.  By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim.   -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You assume wrong.  Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence.  Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's.  Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist.  Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise?  A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian.  Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And your claim that &amp;quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&amp;quot; is another sweeping generalization.  Please tell me how that proves that he is a Muslim (or not an Atheist), because it's completely absurd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: By the way, Obama's father was an Atheist.  I suspect that most people retain the religion (or lack thereof) of their parents.  But either way, I'm not trying to make the case that he's an Atheist (or that he's not a Muslim).  My point is that he says he's a Christian so anything else is just a theory which has no place in an encyclopedia article (unless this is not really an encyclopedia, but just a forum for pushing your conservative ideology). --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:40, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651267</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651267"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T16:31:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Argument for Obama being a Muslim */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back.  It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources.  Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations.  I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we have an honest discussion about this section.  There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;[16]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true.  This doesn't make him Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is misleading to say the least.  Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia.  Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen.  -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[21]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context.  He said &amp;quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&amp;quot;.  Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim.  If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;[22]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, it probably is &amp;quot;compatible with the modern world&amp;quot;.  Why is this evidence he is Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could go on but I am getting tired of this.  I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations.  Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article?  Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first.  Early life and legal career and that stuff.  And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody.  I welcome any comments.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too.  I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you.  [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian.  It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]].  Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement.  Biographical information first and then other issues.  By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim.   -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You assume wrong.  Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence.  Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's.  Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist.  Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise?  A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian.  Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651265</id>
		<title>Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651265"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T16:27:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Undo revision 651221 by Jpatt (Talk)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{President&lt;br /&gt;
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=44&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=January 20, 2009&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=January 20, 2013&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Democrat&lt;br /&gt;
|vp=Joe Biden&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=George W. Bush&lt;br /&gt;
|next=&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=August 4, 1961&lt;br /&gt;
|age={{age|1961|8|4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=Described in this entry&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in [[Honolulu]] Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th president of the [[United States]], &lt;br /&gt;
and previously served as a first-term [[Democratic party|Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004-2008).  Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidential election&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; most of it raised from anonymous donors.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As President, Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of [[Israel]]'s Prime Minister,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-is-not-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam....-many-americans-have.../444572/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and for inclusion of [[Turkey]] in the [[European Union]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his [[Socialism|socialist]] idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.&amp;quot; [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT], N.Y. Post &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John McCain quipped during the campaign, &amp;quot;He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief.&amp;quot;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008.  The slogan &amp;quot;from each according to their ability to each according to their need&amp;quot; is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and could be the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama plans to introduce to the US when he is installed into office.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to or can not afford to purchase it themselves.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; To announce his trip to [[Berlin]] in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of [[Lenin]] and [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/31/the-la-times-looks-into-the-obama-che-iconcography-connection/ The LA Times looks into the Obama-Che iconcography connection] by Michelle Malkin &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/ &amp;quot;Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?&amp;quot;, Accuracy in Media.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while Obama has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama was nominated for president, criticized Obama as the &amp;quot;most committed&amp;quot; [[abortion]]-supporting candidate &amp;quot;since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama said &amp;quot;the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It &amp;quot;would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make [[partial-birth abortion]] legal again.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008.  Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] observed that Obama uses techniques of [[mind control]] in his speeches and campaign symbols.  One Obama speech declared, &amp;quot;a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mind control&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 .  The doctors observe that &amp;quot;Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama is likely the first Muslim President==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|left|thumb|President-Elect Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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'''.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm.  During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which most Christians would not retain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion.  For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: &amp;quot;Cristiano&amp;quot;.[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814]  When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to &amp;quot;Paul&amp;quot;; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].  &amp;quot;It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion&amp;quot;[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;[[my Muslim faith]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama declared, &amp;quot;John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &amp;quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&amp;quot; and recited &amp;quot;with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent&amp;quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, &amp;quot;Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78323]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &amp;quot;The Post-American World&amp;quot; by [[Fareed Zakaria]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; rather than the common American one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama repeatedly pronounced &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;Pokiston&amp;quot; in the first presidential debate.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became &amp;quot;churched&amp;quot; in a 2007 speech: &amp;quot;It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot;.  &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; 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'', meaning &amp;quot;Christian turned Muslim.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;President-elect [[Barack Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Obama_to_take_oath_using_middle_name_/articleshow/3813120.cms&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/politics/main4660590.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4660590&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009]]&lt;br /&gt;
*'''At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, &amp;quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &amp;quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=483326&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, there is a vast, inexorable difference between bending down to receive a medal as Bush did and bowing in deference to a foreign leader as Obama did.)&lt;br /&gt;
*In his speech to the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, Obama stated, &amp;quot;We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world - including in my own country. 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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a &amp;quot;confirmed [[atheist]]&amp;quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991, nor of Barack Obama's joining of a Mosque (The Islamic house of worship) at any time in his life.  Finally, Obama abruptly left his radical Christian church in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. On April 7, 2009, Obama visited a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c2e3700ab4e271bc32827b0fccfe560b.421&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__ &amp;lt;!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama and Elitism and Ayers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; Americans.  Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied &amp;quot;it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I &amp;quot;didn't say it as well as I should have.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&amp;amp;ElectionID=28&amp;amp;OfficeID=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he &amp;quot;worked his way through college and Harvard Law.&amp;quot; This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would.  In his first television interview after becoming president, Obama declared that &amp;quot;all too often the United States starts by dictating.&amp;quot;  Earlier, when Obama gave his acceptance speech, he said &amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl135]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Author and blogger Jack Cashill requisitioned a comparison of the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres may have ghostwritten Dreams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father&amp;quot;?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book; also he wrote &amp;quot;None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams,&amp;quot; the experienced analyst found &amp;quot;a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples&amp;quot; that he processed.  He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book.  A philosophy professor from England disagreed.[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=77815]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ayers admitted that he was &amp;quot;guilty as hell&amp;quot; in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he &amp;quot;should have done more.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Insights==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as &amp;quot;blow&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;pot&amp;quot; respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him.  In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians.&amp;quot; [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama said that &amp;quot;[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.&amp;quot;  In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as &amp;quot;the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his famous 2002 speech&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot; and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign &amp;quot;is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Charitable Giving==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year.  Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother.  According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&amp;amp;BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down.  She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United states it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the united states. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Statements==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, &amp;quot;I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.&amp;quot; (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life and education==&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama II claims to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years.  Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science.  Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School.  He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&amp;amp;scp=3&amp;amp;sq=Obama%201990&amp;amp;st=cse&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal career==&lt;br /&gt;
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill &amp;amp; Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today.  During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education.  ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlighted Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois &amp;quot;for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;quot;'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer,'&amp;quot; in Obama's hometown of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides.&amp;quot; [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and 16th most liberal in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published.  Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that &amp;quot;racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run ....  We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics.  ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a &amp;quot;new strategy&amp;quot; in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&amp;amp;page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bills co-sponsored ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website&amp;lt;obamasenate2010.gov&amp;gt; is now defunct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois.  His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future.  It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his &amp;quot;House Divided&amp;quot; speech.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html &amp;quot;Obama declares he's running for President&amp;quot;] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general.  Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors.  $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an &amp;quot;articulate&amp;quot; spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Chicago Sun-Times, &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, &lt;br /&gt;
April 29, 2007,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy &amp;quot;...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing.  After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted.  First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]].  Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions.  Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation.  Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era.  The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, &lt;br /&gt;
'''&amp;quot;America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.&amp;quot;''' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. &amp;quot;Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 6th, an [[AP]] article &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&amp;amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class.  According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign financing=== &lt;br /&gt;
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, &amp;quot;Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?,&amp;quot; ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Secrecy=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia Thesis paper&lt;br /&gt;
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Harvard]] College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Illinois State Senate records&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary&lt;br /&gt;
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers&lt;br /&gt;
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)&lt;br /&gt;
# Occidental College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate&lt;br /&gt;
# Record of baptism&lt;br /&gt;
# Selective Service Registration&lt;br /&gt;
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007&lt;br /&gt;
# Scholarly articles&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])&lt;br /&gt;
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the &amp;quot;largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tone===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running &amp;quot;the dirtiest campaign in American history.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. &amp;quot;Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division,&amp;quot; Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, &amp;quot;...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain &amp;quot;lost his bearings&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, &amp;quot;He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign (Ethan Winner has made a claim that he alone produced the video) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194180.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, &amp;quot;I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element.&amp;quot; Other eyewitness reports are harsher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Election==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote.  He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 127 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[www.cnn.com/election]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Positions and Qualifications ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is [[pro-abortion]].  The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the  mother's womb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{QuoteBox|&amp;quot;If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.&amp;quot;}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own.  Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take &amp;quot;extreme&amp;quot; positions or would use terrorist tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ...  Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.&amp;quot;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site &amp;quot;MoveOn.org&amp;quot; for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].  Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that &amp;quot;Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's &amp;quot;research&amp;quot; for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the [[Constitution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the &amp;quot;best student I ever had&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;most exciting research assistant.&amp;quot; [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office.  In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;aye&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;nay&amp;quot; nearly an astounding 130 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed.  A newspaper that favored Obama  took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]].  &amp;quot;Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ...  The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  The [[New York Times]] noted that &amp;quot;Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&amp;amp;ex=1358485200&amp;amp;en=bb179297e5f61acb&amp;amp;ei=5090&amp;amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;amp;emc=rss&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut,&amp;quot; the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama often makes reference to his &amp;quot;two decades of experience&amp;quot; in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist&amp;quot;.]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Which matches the fact that during his campaign, his staff were discovered on numerous occasions to have Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist guerrilla/murderer [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/obama_workers_c.html Obama Workers' Che Guevara Poster Was No Fluke] from Moonbattery&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] calls Obama a &amp;quot;radical communist.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.] NewsMax, February 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's views on [[gun control]] are focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Kopel, &amp;quot;The Democrats and Gun Control,&amp;quot; Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he &amp;quot;never saw or approved the questionnaire,&amp;quot; and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has said, &amp;quot;Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as &amp;quot;an age-appropriate manner&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten.&amp;quot; [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way.  In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot;. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'.  Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, &amp;quot;There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy,&amp;quot; Obama said &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies,&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mcca)n/]`Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to &amp;quot;John McCain's President, George W. Bush&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is for a one-world government unaccountable to the American people, a threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence. He said &amp;quot;for all nations in the world to come together to build a stronger, global regime&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=94380]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreign policy experience ==&lt;br /&gt;
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that &amp;quot;foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident&amp;quot; and then cited &amp;quot;having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa&amp;quot;. He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious affiliations==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tucc.org/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. &lt;br /&gt;
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blamed the media &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, stating “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...&amp;quot;, and called Wright's rhetoric &amp;quot;&amp;quot;a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's &amp;quot;Rants&amp;quot;''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements &amp;quot;G-d damn America&amp;quot; and describing the September 11th attacks, he said &amp;quot;We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying &amp;quot;We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside.&amp;quot;}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Published criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who made a racially insensitive remark&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, &amp;quot;The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as &amp;quot;miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of &amp;quot;mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners&amp;quot; on the campaign trail.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set &amp;quot;an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Birth Certificate Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
During  the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth certificate, claiming that it is false and that he is ineligible for Presidency. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as &lt;br /&gt;
authentic.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The site stated, &amp;quot;FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.&amp;quot;  In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number.  The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of Hawaii announced that the &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; document is legitimate and official. Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body, they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Critics rightfully point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; from Hawaii. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92810 Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge] WND, March 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Schultz]] with the [[We The People Foundation]] said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He... has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Nancy Salvato]] with [[BasicsProject|BasicsProject.org]] perhaps put it best: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth... not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama Administration‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama doublespeak]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama inauguration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama's religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&amp;amp;in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Dont Vote For Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack Hussein}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{USPresidents}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Obama Administration]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651263</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651263"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T16:25:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Allegedly Born in Honolulu? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back.  It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources.  Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations.  I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we have an honest discussion about this section.  There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;[16]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true.  This doesn't make him Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is misleading to say the least.  Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia.  Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen.  -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[21]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context.  He said &amp;quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&amp;quot;.  Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim.  If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;[22]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, it probably is &amp;quot;compatible with the modern world&amp;quot;.  Why is this evidence he is Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could go on but I am getting tired of this.  I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations.  Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article?  Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first.  Early life and legal career and that stuff.  And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody.  I welcome any comments.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too.  I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you.  [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian.  It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]].  Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement.  Biographical information first and then other issues.  By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim.   -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You assume wrong.  Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence.  Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's.  Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651176</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651176"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T13:54:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Argument for Obama being a Muslim */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we have an honest discussion about this section.  There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;[16]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true.  This doesn't make him Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is misleading to say the least.  Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia.  Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen.  -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[21]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context.  He said &amp;quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&amp;quot;.  Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim.  If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;[22]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, it probably is &amp;quot;compatible with the modern world&amp;quot;.  Why is this evidence he is Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could go on but I am getting tired of this.  I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations.  Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article?  Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first.  Early life and legal career and that stuff.  And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody.  I welcome any comments.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too.  I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you.  [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian.  It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]].  Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement.  Biographical information first and then other issues.  By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim.   -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651168</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651168"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T13:05:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Argument for Obama being a Muslim */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we have an honest discussion about this section.  There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;[16]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true.  This doesn't make him Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is misleading to say the least.  Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia.  Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen.  -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[21]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context.  He said &amp;quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&amp;quot;.  Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim.  If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;[22]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, it probably is &amp;quot;compatible with the modern world&amp;quot;.  Why is this evidence he is Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could go on but I am getting tired of this.  I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations.  Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article?  Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first.  Early life and legal career and that stuff.  And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody.  I welcome any comments.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651163</id>
		<title>Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651163"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T12:40:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{President&lt;br /&gt;
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|seq=44&lt;br /&gt;
|term_start=January 20, 2009&lt;br /&gt;
|term_end=January 20, 2013&lt;br /&gt;
|party=Democrat&lt;br /&gt;
|vp=Joe Biden&lt;br /&gt;
|previous=George W. Bush&lt;br /&gt;
|next=&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_date=August 4, 1961&lt;br /&gt;
|age={{age|1961|8|4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|birth_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_date=&lt;br /&gt;
|death_place=&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse2=&lt;br /&gt;
|religion=Described in this entry&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in [[Honolulu]] Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th president of the [[United States]], &lt;br /&gt;
and previously served as a first-term [[Democratic party|Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004-2008).  Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidential election&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; most of it raised from anonymous donors.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As President, Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of [[Israel]]'s Prime Minister,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-is-not-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam....-many-americans-have.../444572/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and for inclusion of [[Turkey]] in the [[European Union]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his [[Socialism|socialist]] idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.&amp;quot; [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT], N.Y. Post &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John McCain quipped during the campaign, &amp;quot;He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief.&amp;quot;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008.  The slogan &amp;quot;from each according to their ability to each according to their need&amp;quot; is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and could be the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama plans to introduce to the US when he is installed into office.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to or can not afford to purchase it themselves.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; To announce his trip to [[Berlin]] in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of [[Lenin]] and [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/31/the-la-times-looks-into-the-obama-che-iconcography-connection/ The LA Times looks into the Obama-Che iconcography connection] by Michelle Malkin &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/ &amp;quot;Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?&amp;quot;, Accuracy in Media.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while he has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama was nominated for president, criticized Obama as the &amp;quot;most committed&amp;quot; [[abortion]]-supporting candidate &amp;quot;since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama said &amp;quot;the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It &amp;quot;would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make [[partial-birth abortion]] legal again.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008.  Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] observed that Obama uses techniques of [[mind control]] in his speeches and campaign symbols.  One Obama speech declared, &amp;quot;a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mind control&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 .  The doctors observe that &amp;quot;Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama is likely the first Muslim President==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|left|thumb|President-Elect Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, &amp;quot;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'''.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm.  During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which most Christians would not retain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion.  For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: &amp;quot;Cristiano&amp;quot;.[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814]  When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to &amp;quot;Paul&amp;quot;; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].  &amp;quot;It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion&amp;quot;[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama recently mentioned his religion as &amp;quot;[[my Muslim faith]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama declared, &amp;quot;John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &amp;quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&amp;quot; and recited &amp;quot;with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent&amp;quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, &amp;quot;Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=78323]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &amp;quot;The Post-American World&amp;quot; by [[Fareed Zakaria]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; rather than the common American one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama repeatedly pronounced &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;Pokiston&amp;quot; in the first presidential debate.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became &amp;quot;churched&amp;quot; in a 2007 speech: &amp;quot;It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot;.  &amp;quot;Renegade&amp;quot; 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'', meaning &amp;quot;Christian turned Muslim.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;President-elect [[Barack Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Obama_to_take_oath_using_middle_name_/articleshow/3813120.cms&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/politics/main4660590.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4660590&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Obama chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009]]&lt;br /&gt;
*'''At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, &amp;quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &amp;quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=483326&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, there is a vast, inexorable difference between bending down to receive a medal as Bush did and bowing in deference to a foreign leader as Obama did.)&lt;br /&gt;
*In his speech to the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, Obama stated, &amp;quot;We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world - including in my own country. 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.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a &amp;quot;confirmed [[atheist]]&amp;quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991, nor of Barack Obama's joining of a Mosque (The Islamic house of worship) at any time in his life.  Finally, Obama abruptly left his radical Christian church in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. Obama was sworn into the U.S. senate on a [[Bible]]. On April 7, 2009, Obama visited a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c2e3700ab4e271bc32827b0fccfe560b.421&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__ &amp;lt;!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama and Elitism and Ayers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; Americans.  Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied &amp;quot;it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I &amp;quot;didn't say it as well as I should have.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&amp;amp;ElectionID=28&amp;amp;OfficeID=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he &amp;quot;worked his way through college and Harvard Law.&amp;quot; This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would.  In his first television interview after becoming president, Obama declared that &amp;quot;all too often the United States starts by dictating.&amp;quot;  Earlier, when Obama gave his acceptance speech, he said &amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl135]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Author and blogger Jack Cashill requisitioned a comparison of the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres may have ghostwritten Dreams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father&amp;quot;?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book; also he wrote &amp;quot;None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams,&amp;quot; the experienced analyst found &amp;quot;a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples&amp;quot; that he processed.  He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book.  A philosophy professor from England disagreed.[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=77815]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ayers admitted that he was &amp;quot;guilty as hell&amp;quot; in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he &amp;quot;should have done more.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Insights==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as &amp;quot;blow&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;pot&amp;quot; respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him.  In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians.&amp;quot; [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama said that &amp;quot;[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.&amp;quot;  In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as &amp;quot;the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his famous 2002 speech&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot; and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign &amp;quot;is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;  [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Charitable Giving==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year.  Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother.  According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&amp;amp;BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down.  She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United states it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the united states. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Statements==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, &amp;quot;I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.&amp;quot; (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life and education==&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama II claims to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years.  Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science.  Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School.  He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&amp;amp;scp=3&amp;amp;sq=Obama%201990&amp;amp;st=cse&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal career==&lt;br /&gt;
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill &amp;amp; Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today.  During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education.  ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlighted Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois &amp;quot;for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;quot;'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer,'&amp;quot; in Obama's hometown of Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides.&amp;quot; [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and 16th most liberal in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published.  Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that &amp;quot;racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run ....  We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics.  ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a &amp;quot;new strategy&amp;quot; in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&amp;amp;page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bills co-sponsored ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website&amp;lt;obamasenate2010.gov&amp;gt; is now defunct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois.  His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future.  It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his &amp;quot;House Divided&amp;quot; speech.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html &amp;quot;Obama declares he's running for President&amp;quot;] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general.  Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors.  $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an &amp;quot;articulate&amp;quot; spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Chicago Sun-Times, &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, &lt;br /&gt;
April 29, 2007,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy &amp;quot;...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing.  After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted.  First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]].  Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions.  Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation.  Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era.  The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, &lt;br /&gt;
'''&amp;quot;America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.&amp;quot;''' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. &amp;quot;Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 6th, an [[AP]] article &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&amp;amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&amp;amp;id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class.  According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign financing=== &lt;br /&gt;
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, &amp;quot;Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?,&amp;quot; ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Secrecy=== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Columbia Thesis paper&lt;br /&gt;
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Harvard]] College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Illinois State Senate records&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary&lt;br /&gt;
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers&lt;br /&gt;
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)&lt;br /&gt;
# Occidental College records&lt;br /&gt;
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate&lt;br /&gt;
# Record of baptism&lt;br /&gt;
# Selective Service Registration&lt;br /&gt;
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007&lt;br /&gt;
# Scholarly articles&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])&lt;br /&gt;
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the &amp;quot;largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Tone===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running &amp;quot;the dirtiest campaign in American history.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. &amp;quot;Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division,&amp;quot; Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, &amp;quot;...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain &amp;quot;lost his bearings&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, &amp;quot;He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign (Ethan Winner has made a claim that he alone produced the video) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194180.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, &amp;quot;I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element.&amp;quot; Other eyewitness reports are harsher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Election==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote.  He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 127 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[www.cnn.com/election]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Positions and Qualifications ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is [[pro-abortion]].  The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the  mother's womb.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{QuoteBox|&amp;quot;If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.&amp;quot;}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own.  Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take &amp;quot;extreme&amp;quot; positions or would use terrorist tactics.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ...  Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.&amp;quot;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site &amp;quot;MoveOn.org&amp;quot; for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].  Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that &amp;quot;Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's &amp;quot;research&amp;quot; for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the [[Constitution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the &amp;quot;best student I ever had&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;most exciting research assistant.&amp;quot; [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office.  In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;aye&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;nay&amp;quot; nearly an astounding 130 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed.  A newspaper that favored Obama  took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]].  &amp;quot;Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ...  The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;teleprompter&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  The [[New York Times]] noted that &amp;quot;Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&amp;amp;ex=1358485200&amp;amp;en=bb179297e5f61acb&amp;amp;ei=5090&amp;amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;amp;emc=rss&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut,&amp;quot; the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama often makes reference to his &amp;quot;two decades of experience&amp;quot; in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist&amp;quot;.]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Which matches the fact that during his campaign, his staff were discovered on numerous occasions to have Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist guerrilla/murderer [[Che Guevara]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/obama_workers_c.html Obama Workers' Che Guevara Poster Was No Fluke] from Moonbattery&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] calls Obama a &amp;quot;radical communist.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.] NewsMax, February 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's views on [[gun control]] are focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Kopel, &amp;quot;The Democrats and Gun Control,&amp;quot; Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he &amp;quot;never saw or approved the questionnaire,&amp;quot; and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has said, &amp;quot;Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as &amp;quot;an age-appropriate manner&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten.&amp;quot; [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way.  In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to &amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot;. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'.  Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, &amp;quot;There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy,&amp;quot; Obama said &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies,&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mcca)n/]`Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to &amp;quot;John McCain's President, George W. Bush&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is for a one-world government unaccountable to the American people, a threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence. He said &amp;quot;for all nations in the world to come together to build a stronger, global regime&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=94380]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreign policy experience ==&lt;br /&gt;
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that &amp;quot;foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident&amp;quot; and then cited &amp;quot;having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa&amp;quot;. He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious affiliations==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tucc.org/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. &lt;br /&gt;
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blamed the media &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, stating “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...&amp;quot;, and called Wright's rhetoric &amp;quot;&amp;quot;a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's &amp;quot;Rants&amp;quot;''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements &amp;quot;G-d damn America&amp;quot; and describing the September 11th attacks, he said &amp;quot;We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying &amp;quot;We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside.&amp;quot;}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 &lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Published criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who made a racially insensitive remark&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, &amp;quot;The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as &amp;quot;miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of &amp;quot;mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners&amp;quot; on the campaign trail.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set &amp;quot;an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Birth Certificate Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
During  the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth certificate, claiming that it is false and that he is ineligible for Presidency. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as &lt;br /&gt;
authentic.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The site stated, &amp;quot;FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.&amp;quot;  In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number.  The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The &amp;quot;dual loyalties&amp;quot; which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state of Hawaii announced that the &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; document is legitimate and official. Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body, they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Critics rightfully point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a &amp;quot;Certification of Live Birth&amp;quot; from Hawaii. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92810 Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge] WND, March 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Schultz]] with the [[We The People Foundation]] said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He... has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Nancy Salvato]] with [[BasicsProject|BasicsProject.org]] perhaps put it best: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth... not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama Administration‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama doublespeak]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama inauguration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Obama's religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&amp;amp;in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Dont Vote For Obama.net]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack Hussein}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{USPresidents}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Socialists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Obama Administration]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651162</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=651162"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T12:38:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trip to Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most telling, he declared &amp;quot;I love this country [Canada]&amp;quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Demanding Major Change ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become &amp;quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot; it has to convey both sides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &amp;quot;c&amp;quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me.  Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't think you can &amp;quot;demand&amp;quot; anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.&lt;br /&gt;
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.&lt;br /&gt;
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)&lt;br /&gt;
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough &amp;quot;evidence&amp;quot; to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent &amp;quot;negotiations&amp;quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few.  I met the now-president myself once.  He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that &amp;quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &amp;quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Arab-American ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president.  If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write &amp;quot;first openly black president&amp;quot; or something.  But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election.  An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph.  I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article.  However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).  --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &amp;quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&amp;quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Small comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement.  Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant.  Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &amp;quot;Family&amp;quot; Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln's Bible? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely muslim&amp;quot; section?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of &amp;quot;trickery&amp;quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &amp;quot;likely Christian&amp;quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't.  Seems a bit unreasonable.  None of those other candidates were ever accused of being &amp;quot;Manchurian Muslims&amp;quot; just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in.  Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion?  Do those count?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se.  I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim.  And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack.  If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so.  If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Anyway, this is all a moot point.  He's not a Muslim.  As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony.  I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony.  But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6]  (7][8]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has espoused the idea of &amp;quot;spreading the wealth,&amp;quot;[10] &lt;br /&gt;
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy   in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]&lt;br /&gt;
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &amp;quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&amp;quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all.  Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting, Steven.  But where did you get it from?  The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama/Muslim Support ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters.  How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another  section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I know we lost a week... ==&lt;br /&gt;
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Low Res Pic ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of...&amp;quot;Him.&amp;quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &amp;quot;He&amp;quot; has corrected this&amp;amp;mdash;er&amp;amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Second swearing in ceremony? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/)  [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &amp;quot;private.&amp;quot;  There were a number of reporters present.  Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding.  In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation.  There are plenty out there, so get to it!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Rejects ID''&lt;br /&gt;
From the responses to a Q&amp;amp;A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''&lt;br /&gt;
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &amp;quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&amp;quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; would hurt him a national election. &amp;quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why no family section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats.  They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence.  Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &amp;quot;anti-family,&amp;quot; you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some Changes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is this locked?&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has not been succeded by &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; nor will he be.&lt;br /&gt;
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Incumbent&amp;quot; means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is he or isn't he President?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it.   It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator.   I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page?   Ready to help.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based.    Good.   However, I would expect  - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus.   It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow.   I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible.   So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article.   I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch.   There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence.   What's yours?   You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger.   The message is  - the article's a disaster.   Now, what are you doing about that?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of.   I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&amp;quot;.   Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article.   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article should begin with &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&amp;quot; Someone please make this change.  [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President.   But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious.   Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here.   First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article).   If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'.   Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence.   You might as well write &amp;quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&amp;quot;.   The two items have no connection.   Subject-Object.   Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence.   There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed.   This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses.    The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations.   It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois.   The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts.   Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body.   I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'.   Would you trust your children with this article?   [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Real Bible NOT Koran ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're clueless, Myles.  Obama's real oath was not on the Bible.  I don't know if it was on the Koran.  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it.  Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing.  Your non-American spelling of &amp;quot;honor&amp;quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it.  Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &amp;quot;swearing in on the Koran&amp;quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. &lt;br /&gt;
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Incumbent ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about &amp;quot;Sarah Palin&amp;quot;? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in.  I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “ &lt;br /&gt;
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stylistic matter ==&lt;br /&gt;
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no?  That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009.  One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Wikipedia?  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &amp;quot;typical&amp;quot; for Conservapedia.  The Bush entry was changed from &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just &amp;quot;assumed office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;incumbent&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;January 20, 2009.&amp;quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;incumbent.&amp;quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Naming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette &amp;quot;Joe&amp;quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No.  But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) --  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about.  What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009&lt;br /&gt;
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is. &lt;br /&gt;
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. &amp;quot;Sidney&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Robinette&amp;quot; are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose.  A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling.  What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. &amp;quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&amp;quot; I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Change of wording? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&amp;quot; would be better written as &amp;quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&amp;quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update picture? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;talk&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's religious outlook ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Obama's &amp;quot;outlook is Muslim&amp;quot;?  That is simply not true'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama article presently reads: &amp;quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&amp;quot;pro-choice&amp;quot;)  ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=72511]  How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology?  Not many at all.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America.&amp;quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda.  I cite the following: &amp;quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &amp;quot;overturn&amp;quot; the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=86633]  I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: &amp;quot;Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against &amp;quot;morality&amp;quot;.&amp;quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first statement in the Insights section claims that &amp;quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &amp;quot;Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to &amp;quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&amp;quot;; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rearranged content==&lt;br /&gt;
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context.  This I hope was corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii.  There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not.  But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order.  [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &amp;quot;may be&amp;quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There you go again!  &amp;quot;Actually is&amp;quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &amp;quot;is&amp;quot; -- ''is''!  Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &amp;quot;is&amp;quot;?  I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#006666&amp;quot; &amp;gt;JArneal&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama and Sexism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Presidential Campaign&amp;quot; section of this article it states &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&amp;quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner.  Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: &amp;quot;Obama was caught...&amp;quot; we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all.  It's also documented that Winner &amp;amp; Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign.  While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way.  I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: &amp;quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp;amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&amp;quot; Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: &amp;quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&amp;quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &amp;quot;a woman and outsider&amp;quot; is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked.  There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng]  Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience.  Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting.  Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label &amp;quot;sexist&amp;quot; being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &amp;quot;lack of experience&amp;quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the &amp;quot;Tone&amp;quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it.  If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday?  You know how long it took me to find that citation?  Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did.  &amp;quot;Assume good faith&amp;quot; is something  attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists.  Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks.  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Category ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Edits==&lt;br /&gt;
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &amp;quot;Birth certificate controversy&amp;quot; section, the word &amp;quot;intelligible&amp;quot; should be &amp;quot;ineligible&amp;quot;.  Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks!  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Flag Pin &amp;quot;insights&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &amp;quot;adequate&amp;quot; explanation. &amp;quot;Adequate&amp;quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &amp;quot;presumably.&amp;quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &amp;quot;likely.&amp;quot; Again, just an opinion. &amp;quot;Recently&amp;quot; is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &amp;quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &amp;quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&amp;quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Dantes, why are you here?  If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michelle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religion... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President.  Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment.  He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter?  Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're wrong on multiple points.  How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution.  And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name.  Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam.  Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &amp;quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&amp;quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ct=clnk&amp;amp;cd=11&amp;amp;gl=us&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: &amp;quot;Pauline Christians&amp;quot; as opposed to .... Muslim Christians????  Got news for you:  Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Affirmative Action Question ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html&lt;br /&gt;
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between &amp;quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&amp;quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;lt;1% Correction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.&amp;quot;'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &amp;lt;1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is &amp;lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &amp;lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''&lt;br /&gt;
to&lt;br /&gt;
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama's name in Arabic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &amp;quot;باراك حسين أوباما&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &amp;quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels.  It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version.  I looked up &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
بارك حسین اوباما'''  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that &amp;quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''He has said that the experience of  living among Muslims in Indonesia  showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The background adds nothing.  Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are &amp;quot;compatible&amp;quot; with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== More religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intro states that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&amp;quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &amp;quot;real.&amp;quot; Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath???  Please.  Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as &amp;quot;real,&amp;quot; when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama &amp;quot;chose not use&amp;quot; a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he &amp;quot;chose not to&amp;quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &amp;quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;Dantes&amp;quot;, your rant is incoherent.  There's no disputing that Obama &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a Bible for his real, private oath.  Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &amp;quot;real, valid and legally binding,&amp;quot; then there would not have been a second oath.  No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: &amp;quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&amp;quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &amp;quot;chose not to use&amp;quot; a bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &amp;quot;chose not to.&amp;quot; There's no extant source to back this up&lt;br /&gt;
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction&lt;br /&gt;
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying &amp;quot;there's no disputing&amp;quot; something isn't the same as proving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As to the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &amp;quot;superabundance of caution,&amp;quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &amp;quot;seeker of truth&amp;quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==&lt;br /&gt;
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;''&amp;quot;It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard.&amp;quot;'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found  [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further.  Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to add this text right before the &amp;quot;Campaign financing&amp;quot; secion:&lt;br /&gt;
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &amp;quot;working families.&amp;quot;”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Good point.  I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Obama &amp;amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist &amp;quot;hero&amp;quot; (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abandoned ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Page should be unlocked==&lt;br /&gt;
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours.  Communists at Wikipedia?  That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere.  I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''&amp;quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&amp;quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author.  I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Age template==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ha ha.  You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.&amp;quot;- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &amp;quot;Insights&amp;quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &amp;quot;presumably&amp;quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot; to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Needed updates for Turkey speech, &amp;quot;no longer Christian&amp;quot;, etc. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*update on Obama's &amp;quot;no longer a Christian nation&amp;quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=67735]&lt;br /&gt;
*confirming that the &amp;quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&amp;quot; prediction came true (Turkey)&lt;br /&gt;
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &amp;quot;Islam is not the enemy&amp;quot; type of content.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Go ahead, David.  I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &amp;quot;The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''.&amp;quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &amp;quot;The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''&amp;quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree.  A president's religious beliefs are significant.  When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian?  I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them.  Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object.  Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu.  And not to mention he's released his birth certificate.  I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here.  I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651160</id>
		<title>Talk:Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651160"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T12:21:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Please Explain Edit Revisions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal.  It isn't, actually.  Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling.  An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't.  In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:]  [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please Explain Edit Revisions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...'''   Why is this being reverted?  I think this makes the article better.  By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive.   I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling.  And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Only some chess games are gambling. Chess by itself is not gambling, any more than other things a liberal could bet on, like the outcome of a surgical procedure. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:23, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who really cares if chess is gambling or not, my point is that an encyclopedia article should start with a simple definition.  Merriam Webster defines gambling as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome  2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we just define the darn thing before casting any judgment on it? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:29, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ok, I am cold and I have not had coffee yet, so I am grumpy as I write this. BHarlan - lay off the liberal namecalling and treat other editors - even if you disagree with them - as you would expect to be treated yourself. Regarding the article - it should start with a definition, but it should also state that it is addictive. However, as that claim is currently uncited, one of you will provide a source that confirms gambling is addictive. Enough of this stupid in-fighting, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not bicker amongst ourselves. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::the issue of addiction is important and should have its own fully referenced section.  Only a small minority of people (like 10%) are addicted to gambling but they create a lot of problems for themselves (and a lot of revenue for the casinos and governments). The addictive business should not be in the lede.  And &amp;quot;unproductive&amp;quot; is false: gambling is a major source of legal entertainment, as office pools at playoff time indicate. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:48, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Exactly so, Dr. Jensen.  Anyone with life experience knows, almost without first-hand experience, that those addicted to gambling will, if need be, bet on anything; trains/airplanes/buses arriving late, or early, the chances of a co-worker not showing for work, whatever. Experts in the field surmise that it is at best wildly under-diagnosed and unknown by family members, so good at covering their tracks these poor souls become, most are never discovered unless and until their &amp;quot;house of cards&amp;quot; tumbles, and by then financial ruin is complete.  [http://www.helpguide.org/mental/gambling_addiction.htm]- [http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html] - [http://www.toomanybets.com/] - [http://www.ncpgambling.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1] - [http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/compulsive-gambling-addiction-and-treatment_17.html]  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:07, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great we're all in agreement, the article should definitely talk about addiction, just not in the first sentence.  I am much happier with the current form. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651159</id>
		<title>Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651159"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T12:19:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Correcting Typo&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Gambling''' consists of betting on games of chance or uncertain outcomes (like the winner of a sports match or an election).   Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Most gambling is informal among friends, as in weekly poker games or in office pools focused on a sports championship. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However the gaming industry is a major tourist-oriented business in Nevada. In recent decades casino gambling has been legalized in many states, in come cases in narrowly specified locales (such as riverboats) or on Indian reservations (which are less subject to state law.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.  Lotteries are a major revenue source for governments.&lt;br /&gt;
==Addiction==&lt;br /&gt;
A certain fraction of the population is addicted to gambling and tend to drain family resources on the habit. Stories are common of addicts losing all their money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].&lt;br /&gt;
==Odds==&lt;br /&gt;
In games played against the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legality of Gambling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again.  Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that &amp;quot;the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful  &lt;br /&gt;
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.&lt;br /&gt;
==Internet gambling==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, &amp;quot;Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?&amp;quot;.  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gambling Loss Limit ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o	n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:gambling]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651108</id>
		<title>Talk:Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651108"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:29:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Please Explain Edit Revisions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal.  It isn't, actually.  Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling.  An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't.  In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:]  [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please Explain Edit Revisions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...'''   Why is this being reverted?  I think this makes the article better.  By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive.   I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling.  And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Only some chess games are gambling. Chess by itself is not gambling, any more than other things a liberal could bet on, like the outcome of a surgical procedure. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:23, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who really cares if chess is gambling or not, my point is that an encyclopedia article should start with a simple definition.  Merriam Webster defines gambling as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome  2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we just define the darn thing before casting any judgment on it? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:29, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651106</id>
		<title>Talk:Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651106"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:21:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal.  It isn't, actually.  Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling.  An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't.  In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:]  [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please Explain Edit Revisions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...'''   Why is this being reverted?  I think this makes the article better.  By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive.   I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling.  And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651105</id>
		<title>Talk:Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651105"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:21:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal.  It isn't, actually.  Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling.  An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't.  In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:]  [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please Explain Edit Revisions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...'''   Why is this being reverted?  I think this makes the article better.  By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive.   I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling.  And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651102</id>
		<title>Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651102"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:17:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Undo revision 651100 by BHarlan (Talk)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The term '''Gambling''' is used to describe any activity consisting of betting on games of chance.  Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Gambling also includes betting on sporting events, or on events such as election results. [[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many tragedies result from addiction to gambling, such as losing all of one's money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In games played against the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legality of Gambling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again.  Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that &amp;quot;the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful  &lt;br /&gt;
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, &amp;quot;Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?&amp;quot;.  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gambling Loss Limit ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o	n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:gambling]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651099</id>
		<title>Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651099"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:12:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Undo revision 651090 by BHarlan (Talk)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The term '''Gambling''' is used to describe any activity consisting of betting on games of chance.  Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Gambling also includes betting on sporting events, or on events such as election results. [[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many tragedies result from addiction to gambling, such as losing all of one's money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In games played against the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legality of Gambling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again.  Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that &amp;quot;the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful  &lt;br /&gt;
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, &amp;quot;Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?&amp;quot;.  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gambling Loss Limit ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o	n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:gambling]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651098</id>
		<title>Talk:Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gambling&amp;diff=651098"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T05:11:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal.  It isn't, actually.  Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling.  An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't.  In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:]  [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Please Explain Edit Revisions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...'''   Why is this being reverted?  I think this makes the article better.  By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive.   I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating.  --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Canada&amp;diff=651091</id>
		<title>Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Canada&amp;diff=651091"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:56:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Country&lt;br /&gt;
|name           =''Canada''&lt;br /&gt;
|map	        =Canada pol99.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|map2           =Loc of Canada.png&lt;br /&gt;
|flag	        =Flag of Canada.svg&lt;br /&gt;
|arms	        =Canada arms.png&lt;br /&gt;
|capital	=Ottawa&lt;br /&gt;
|capital-raw	=&lt;br /&gt;
|government	=Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy&lt;br /&gt;
|government-raw	=&lt;br /&gt;
|language	=English, French&lt;br /&gt;
|king	        =&lt;br /&gt;
|queen	        =Elizabeth II&lt;br /&gt;
|monarch-raw	=&lt;br /&gt;
|president	=&lt;br /&gt;
|president-raw	=&lt;br /&gt;
|chancellor	=&lt;br /&gt;
|chancellor-raw	=&lt;br /&gt;
|pm	        =Stephen Harper&lt;br /&gt;
|pm-raw	        =&lt;br /&gt;
|chairman       =&lt;br /&gt;
|premier        =&lt;br /&gt;
|area	        = &lt;br /&gt;
|pop	        =32,907,500 &lt;br /&gt;
|pop-basis	=2007&lt;br /&gt;
|gdp	        =$1.105 trillion&lt;br /&gt;
|gdp-year	=2007&lt;br /&gt;
|gdp-pc	        =$35,133&lt;br /&gt;
|currency	=Canadian dollar&lt;br /&gt;
|idd		=&lt;br /&gt;
|tld            =&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]].  Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border, that with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: &amp;quot;He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Etymology==&lt;br /&gt;
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word &amp;quot;kanata&amp;quot;, meaning &amp;quot;village.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Canadian_Encylopedia&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&amp;amp;ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term &amp;quot;dominion&amp;quot; was new, and it seemed a better choice than &amp;quot;kingdom&amp;quot; (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when &amp;quot;Canada&amp;quot; became the legal name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Flag and anthem==&lt;br /&gt;
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavall&amp;amp;eacute;e, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Geography==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]&lt;br /&gt;
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949.  The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister.  A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.  &lt;br /&gt;
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world. &lt;br /&gt;
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary  (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million). &lt;br /&gt;
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast. &lt;br /&gt;
*Climate: Temperate to arctic. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==People==&lt;br /&gt;
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million. &lt;br /&gt;
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.&lt;br /&gt;
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.&lt;br /&gt;
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages). &lt;br /&gt;
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education. &lt;br /&gt;
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female. &lt;br /&gt;
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted &amp;quot;the world's best place to live&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;   [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is &amp;quot;best place to live&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population.  Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]].  [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&amp;amp;k=34160&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Culture====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia.  The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]].  The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Cultural style====&lt;br /&gt;
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&amp;amp;source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph''  to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a &amp;quot;cultural mosaic&amp;quot; to the United States's &amp;quot;melting pot&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Education====&lt;br /&gt;
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kidergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling.  Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an R, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Marking in Canadian universities, however, tends to be lower with grades over 90% extremely rare in the humanities and social sciences, and higher entrance marks required for those entering from American high schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some Canadian secondary schools, the mark F is absent and substituted by R. A ranges from 100%-80%, B from 79%-70%, C from 69%-60%, D from 59%-50% and R is  any mark less than 50%. However, as education is under provincial jurisdiction marking varies regionally and it is difficult to make generalisations across the board.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This may vary from province to province; it is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Religion====&lt;br /&gt;
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is  [[Catholicism|Catholic]], with a another 29% being [[Protestantism|Protestant]] (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, congruent with the world-wide trend of increasing secularism in young demographics. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other religions of significance in Canada include Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Government==&lt;br /&gt;
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments.  Neither level has supremacy over the other.  The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]].  The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Senate is made up of sentors appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governer General).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate.  The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]].  The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All provincial legislatures are unicameral.  The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html &amp;quot;Vote set for Oct. 14&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Principal Government Officials=== &lt;br /&gt;
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II&lt;br /&gt;
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean&lt;br /&gt;
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper &lt;br /&gt;
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon&lt;br /&gt;
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Political Conditions===&lt;br /&gt;
On February 6, 2006, Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's twenty-second Prime Minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. An admitted &amp;quot;policy specialist,&amp;quot; Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. Prior to becoming Prime Minister, he sat as a Member of Parliament, including as Leader of the Opposition since 2002 when he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethics concerns, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the &amp;quot;official opposition.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ offers candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: improving accountability and ethics in government; lower taxes; fighting crime and urban violence; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with the Americas. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canada's political system, a key challenge for any federal government is balancing the conflicting interests of Canada's 10 provinces and 3 territories. Recognizing the advantages of a coordinated approach in dealing with the federal government, the provinces and territories created a Council of the Federation in 2003, with their leaders (Canada's first ministers) meeting regularly in that forum to develop common positions. Prime Minister Harper met with the provincial premiers and territorial leaders formally on January 11, 2008 and on November 10, 2008. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quebec, which represents 23% of the national population (and has a similar proportion of seats in the House of Commons), seeks to preserve its distinctive francophone nature, and is perceived by the less-populous western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. At least until January 2006's election of Albertan Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====National Unity====&lt;br /&gt;
Popular support for sovereignty appears to be on the wane in Quebec, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Quebec secession movement====&lt;br /&gt;
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation &amp;quot;within a united Canada&amp;quot;. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&amp;amp;Language=E&amp;amp;Mode=1&amp;amp;Parl=39&amp;amp;Ses=1&amp;amp;DocId=2544166&amp;amp;File=0#OOB-1799206&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Taxation===&lt;br /&gt;
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,  and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) .  This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Public Health Care====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of &amp;quot;universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the &amp;quot;Greatest Canadian&amp;quot; on a CBC television programme in 2004 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&amp;amp;id=753&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Defense==&lt;br /&gt;
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
The Canadian Forces are &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism &amp;amp; reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economy==&lt;br /&gt;
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion. &lt;br /&gt;
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.&lt;br /&gt;
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435. &lt;br /&gt;
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water. &lt;br /&gt;
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables. &lt;br /&gt;
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals. &lt;br /&gt;
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.&lt;br /&gt;
===Business===&lt;br /&gt;
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:&lt;br /&gt;
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK. &lt;br /&gt;
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products. &lt;br /&gt;
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.&lt;br /&gt;
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world. &lt;br /&gt;
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
===Confederation===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:CANADA1865.jpg|thumb|400px|Canada on the eve of federation]] Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.&lt;br /&gt;
===Since 1970===&lt;br /&gt;
====1982 Constitution====&lt;br /&gt;
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. Liberal Prime Minister [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians.  It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
====1993 Election====&lt;br /&gt;
The 1993 Canadian general election was an extraordinary one that saw the collapse of a once stable two-party-plus system and the emergence of a less stable one-party dominant system. The governing [[Progressive Conservative party]] went down to the most crushing defeat of any governing party in Canadian electoral history, and two new parties displaced two old ones. A new consrvative party based in [[Alberta]], the [[Reform Party]], captured the political right. The strategic interests of both of the two new parties, Reform and the independent [[Bloc Québécois]] (active only in Quebec), combined to undermine the integrative role that Canadian political parties have traditionally served. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neil Nevitte, et al. &amp;quot;Electoral Discontinuity: The 1993 Canadian Federal Election.&amp;quot; ''International Social Science Journal'' 1995 47(4): 583-599. 0020-8701 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Canadian railways]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.biographi.ca/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''] (1966-2006), thousands of scholarly biographies of notables who died by 1930&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&amp;amp;Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free&lt;br /&gt;
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed.  ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook&lt;br /&gt;
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide&lt;br /&gt;
* Bumsted,J.M.  ''The Peoples of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History''; and ''The Peoples of Canada: A Post-Confederation History.'' (2004). college textbook&lt;br /&gt;
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages&lt;br /&gt;
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook. &lt;br /&gt;
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel, eds. ''Foundations: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History.'' and ''Nation and Society: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History''. Pearson Longman, 2004. articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Creighton, Donald; ''A History of Canada: Dominion of the North'' 1958, 626 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=9444590 online edition], textbook &lt;br /&gt;
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries&lt;br /&gt;
* Desmond Morton. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001) &lt;br /&gt;
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)&lt;br /&gt;
*  Prentice, Alison ''et al''. ''Canadian Women: a history'' (1996, 2nd edition)&lt;br /&gt;
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition. &lt;br /&gt;
* Riendeau, Roger. ''A Short History of Canada'' (2nd ed 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
* Toye, William, ed.  ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&amp;amp;SP_Action=Main-Principal&amp;amp;SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Political Advocacy Websites===&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Canada| ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:North American Countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:NATO members]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Canadian History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&amp;diff=651087</id>
		<title>Talk:Canada</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&amp;diff=651087"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:51:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* First Paragraph */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not &amp;quot;An American Site&amp;quot;. This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== About Canada ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Marijuana ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Canada's Response to SARS ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness.  In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario.  In fact, no real diagnosis of a &amp;quot;syndrome&amp;quot; can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms.  Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made.  The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness.  At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system.  While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Top 10 places to live in the world==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Human Trafficking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Silliness in this entry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel?  That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals.  As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented.  In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles.  There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== previously reverted edits ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres!  Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem.  ''If there is, please let me know.''  I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world.   --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#1E90FF&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;DC143C&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that &amp;quot;life is normal.&amp;quot; I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There actually is no &amp;quot;Canadian grading system&amp;quot; because, as the article points out, education is a provincial responsibility.  In fact it varies among institutions within individual provinces.  Generally speaking, institutions with lower grades required to pass have higher marking standards.  An example is that passing grades at community colleges are usually higher than at universities.  --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:02, 8 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sea to sea not from the bible ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In none of the references of this article is it claimed the origin of the expression &amp;quot;sea to sea&amp;quot; is grounded in the bible, thus I have modified this line.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The country's motto is &amp;quot;A Mari Usque Ad Mare&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;From Sea to Sea&amp;quot; (taken from Psalm 72:8 - &amp;quot;He shall have dominion from sea to sea.&amp;quot;) [1]&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The country's motto is &amp;quot;A Mari Usque Ad Mare&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 16:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, it is, Canada's Motto is based on &amp;quot;From Sea to Sea&amp;quot; from Psalm 72:8.  (See http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm)  There was a Private Member's Bill in 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/northern-motto060310.html) to change it to &amp;quot;From Sea to Sea to Sea&amp;quot; (That is the [[Atlantic]], [[Pacific]] and [[Arctic]] Ocean's that proposed a change, but it did not pan out, like most Private Member's bills.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would suggest we change it back, but I'll add the reference from the Canadian Heritage Website.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Thornhiller|Thornhiller]] 19:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Canada's Economy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why isn't there any mention of its nominal gdp ? it's close to 1.5 trillion dollars, between Spain and Brazil.&lt;br /&gt;
ppp gdp is good to use when you're comparing the economies of poor countries to rich countries but it's not realistic.  What makes more sense, Iran's economy is the same size as Australia's, or it's much smaller than Denmark's ?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==culture and education==&lt;br /&gt;
The section on education grade scales is incorrect, it is up to individual schools, and universites to decide their own grade scales. Also, how is stating Canada doesn't do well in the summer olympics relevant to our culture?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Canadian Healthcare==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is this meant to be a joke? I'm not sure exactly where you're getting these figures for wait times, but as a former administrative employee in a Montreal hospital, I can most assuredly say that the figures are not in the least bit accurate. Non critical surgeries do have wait times, but they are substantially less than the &amp;quot;four to eight months&amp;quot; this article claims. Critical life threatening surgeries are seen to immediately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Non surgical care (which is not mentioned in this article yet of great importance) is also leaps and bounds above established private  services. My grandmother, who is currently 98 years of age, has broken her hip twice in the past five years and received an outstanding level of care from hospitals (free service), care homes (also free), physiotherapists (once more, free) and social caretakers who go to her house (you guessed it, free)both times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the cost and availability of pharmaceutical products is not discussed. Medicines essential to life are freely distributed at hospitals, prescription medications are available at pharmacies for a nominal service charge (which is rarely far above 20$ in my experience), whereas over the counter drugs are readily available at prices equal to other First World nations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would ask that this article be improved and the facts straightened out, because this sounds very much like a broken Ronald Regan recording. [[User:MrCrawford|MrCrawford]] 14:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:If you have good sources for what you stated, you are welcome to make improvements.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==style points==&lt;br /&gt;
I used ''The Canadian Style'', item 2.16 for the plural of &amp;quot;lieutenant governor&amp;quot; [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 23:49, 1 November 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== In the spirit of the main page... ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should we add a section on &amp;quot;Canadians and uncharitableness&amp;quot;? ;)--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Paragraph ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't the first sentence just say that Canada is a country and maybe pinpoint it geographically rather than compare it to USA?  I'm going to do a rewrite if no one objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:51, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651085</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism and morality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651085"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:47:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Inappropriate Comment */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==&lt;br /&gt;
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: &amp;quot;I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.&amp;quot; This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc.  It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business.  [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“  ...He says, &amp;quot;It’s in our self-interest to be moral.&amp;quot; ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality.  (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.)  So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Inappropriate Comment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last sentence in the first paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt; Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.  &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
has nothing to do with Atheism.  I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Unsigned reply: &amp;quot;It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How?  It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
::If its verified then provide a reliable reference.  But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651084</id>
		<title>Gambling</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gambling&amp;diff=651084"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:45:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The term '''Gambling''' is used to describe any activity consisting of betting on games of chance.  Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Gambling also includes betting on sporting events, or on events such as election results. [[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many tragedies result from addiction to gambling, such as losing all of one's money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In games played against the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the &amp;quot;house&amp;quot; takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legality of Gambling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again.  Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that &amp;quot;the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful  &lt;br /&gt;
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, &amp;quot;Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?&amp;quot;.  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gambling Loss Limit ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o	n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:gambling]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651080</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism and morality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651080"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:36:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Inappropriate Comment */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==&lt;br /&gt;
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: &amp;quot;I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.&amp;quot; This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc.  It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business.  [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“  ...He says, &amp;quot;It’s in our self-interest to be moral.&amp;quot; ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality.  (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.)  So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Inappropriate Comment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last sentence in the first paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt; Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.  &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
has nothing to do with Atheism.  I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Unsigned reply: &amp;quot;It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How?  It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_suicide&amp;diff=651077</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism and suicide</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_suicide&amp;diff=651077"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:32:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Unlock? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Bill Muehlenberg==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What on earth does his quote have to do with atheism and suicide? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlock? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we please unlock this article? Are the first quotes from an article written over 100 years ago valid any more? Why is 75% of this article comprised entirely of block quotes? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 12 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree.  A quote from 1894 is questionable at best.  Please unlock. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651071</id>
		<title>Atheism and morality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651071"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:29:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: Removed uncited quotation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In regards to '''atheism and morality''', the Barna Group found that [[Atheism|atheists]]/[[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior, and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&amp;amp;BarnaUpdateID=152&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. [[Kai Nielson]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, &amp;quot;I have a reason why we should be moral.&amp;quot; He says, &amp;quot;It’s in our self-interest to be moral.&amp;quot; I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen5.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding [[atheism]] and [[Moral relativism|moral relativism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of &amp;quot;supermen&amp;quot; must arise with the courage to create their own values through their &amp;quot;will to power.&amp;quot; Nietzsche rejected the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; values of [[Christianity]] (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Bertrand Russell]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, &amp;quot;Outside human desires there is no moral standard.&amp;quot;  [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/refuting_moral_relativism.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, &amp;quot;I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is the historical matter of [[Atheism and deception|deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward]] plus the issue of [[Atheism and Mass Murder|of atheistic ideology of communism being involved in the greatest mass murder of mankind in world history.]]&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and Uncharitableness==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Per capita]] atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&amp;amp;BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&amp;amp;page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Mass Murder]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Nb Atheism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Morality]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651064</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism and morality</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_morality&amp;diff=651064"/>
		<updated>2009-04-10T04:20:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;PaulLaroque: /* Inappropriate Comment */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==&lt;br /&gt;
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: &amp;quot;I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.&amp;quot; This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc.  It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business.  [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“  ...He says, &amp;quot;It’s in our self-interest to be moral.&amp;quot; ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality.  (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.)  So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Inappropriate Comment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last sentence in the first paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt; Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.  &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
has nothing to do with Atheism.  I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PaulLaroque</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>