https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Sardonac 2026-11-10T00:58:42Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=694479 2009-08-19T17:52:14Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>This article is almost completely opinion. References to the Declaration of Independence should be removed, as it is not a founding document of the US, but a document separating the original colonies from Britain.<br /> <br /> The article should be re-written by someone actually knowledgeable in constitutional law. --[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 12:45 16 March 2007 ETD<br /> <br /> The first ammendment seems to confirm the separation of State and Church - KT<br /> <br /> The phrase 'liberal interpreation' needs to be removed, as it has no sources and is not fact.<br /> <br /> ==Wrong reference==<br /> The letter suppossedly from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Associasion is the other way around here. It is not from Jefferson, but it was used here as a reference as though it was. This article does not need a re-write by someone in Constitutional law, but by someone with the common sense required to write this properly. The complete letter from Jefferson I've added to the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Rollback ==<br /> <br /> The [[liberal]] edits removed factual information and thus were rolled back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:20, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Amercian-Christianity-denying Article 11 of the ratified Treaty of Tripoli was almost certainly spurious. ==<br /> <br /> New to and inept with techniques and protocols of this site I ask others to take up the Subject matter using leads provided below. <br /> <br /> Further evidence and information beyond Reference 5 is available from Yale University's Avalon Project covering the Barbary Treaties . See (below) various links to authenticating scholarly work and to the source for the quote below. That quote is from Arabic scholar Snouck Hurgronje's annotated translation of the Arabic (and presumed) copy of the original treaty. The ratified (Christianity denying) version, still is the official one often quoted from and held by the U.S. State Department; it is the Barlow translation from the Arabic, the original treaty language; it unaccountably includes a widely divergent interpolation as Article 11.<br /> <br /> I add emphasis and quote from the annotated translation by Hurgronje:<br /> <br /> &quot;'''The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter''' from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. '''Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:''' <br /> <br /> Praise be to God, who inspires the minds of rulers with causes of well-being and righteousness! The present matter may be in the interest of the land and the servants [of God], in order that things may be put in their place. This whole affair....&quot; <br /> <br /> <br /> SEE THIS LINK http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm FOR THE FOLLOWING MENU AT THE AVALON PROJECT FOR TREATIES WITH THE BARBARY POWERS. These menu items are quite comprehensive if not exhaustive on the topic. <br /> <br /> Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796 and at Algiers January 3, 1797<br /> <br /> Text of the Treaty <br /> The Receipt <br /> The Note <br /> The Approval of Humphreys <br /> The Annotated Translation of 1930 <br /> Translation of the Treaty <br /> Translation of the Receipt <br /> Translation of the Note <br /> Account of the Seals <br /> Hunter Miller's Notes <br /> The Original Treaty <br /> The Cathcart Copy <br /> The Italian Translation <br /> The United States Ratification and Proclamation <br /> Note Regarding the Arabic Text <br /> Note Regarding the Barlow Translation <br /> <br /> SELECT FROM THE ABOVE MENU &quot;TRANSLATION OF THE TREATY&quot; AND FIND A LINK TO GO HERE FOR THE ANNOTATED TRANSLATION BY HURGRONJE http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm#e1<br /> <br /> Note that material under various of the menu options materially substantiate the treaty version Hurgronje translated.<br /> <br /> An interesting discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli is here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html .<br /> <br /> Of course, skeptics rightfully ask how it is possible that the treaty was ratified by the Senate and accepted by the country without objection. The history of the period indicates Barbary Pirates from Barbary States preyed upon, controlled and required tribute for shipping in the Mediterranean Sea. Vital pre- and post-Revolutionary War American Mediterranean shipping had been attacked by the Moslems, sailors had been killed and enslaved, and amounts demanded for tribute were excesssive. Accordingly, in discussing this elsewhere after reading the item above at Tektonics.org I wrote: <br /> <br /> The Tektonics piece provides some support for three plausible explanations [for Americans' acquiescence in Article 11]. Here are three [among] plausible reasons or contributing factors, the first being the most compelling:<br /> <br /> 1. In a word, duress: inability to do otherwise considering past and prospective casualties in vital shipping;<br /> 2. It was likely common knowledge that the hegemonic Moslem pirates viewed being Christian or sailing under a &quot;Christian flag&quot; as a casus belli. This ties to the second part of the claim in Article 11 about relations with Mohametans.<br /> 3. The U.S. Government was technically Christian only in the sense that Christianity energized the majority of the founders, [it was] the spirit of the founding documents, and [of] the citizens. (Individual states, I believe, still had or several recently had had state churches.)<br /> <br /> My apologies for this long commentary. But I believe this is an important item that needs to be threshed out as to its significance.<br /> <br /> == Internationally ==<br /> <br /> This article seems to be completely American-centric. The idea of the separation of church and state is a theme that runs through many former British colonies. In my country (Australia) the motivation behind such a move is because of the wars that were fought in the name of state religion in England in the 16/17 hundreds.<br /> The idea of separating church and state is to allow freedom of religion. If the state, which governs people of many religions, is overtly influenced by a particular religion, then members of other faiths, or indeed those who do not identify with any faith, will feel that their lives are being governed by principles that they do not share. [[User:Zoltaen|Zoltaen]] 10:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I wholeheartedly agree. The Separation of Church as State is a large, complex issue with a long history and many different motivations. The original separation of Church and State (that I know of, could be an earlier case) was when the Catholic Church extricated itself from the Roman government as the Roman empire went into decline. This separation was done to ensure longevity in the Church and to distinguish Church doctrine from Imperial law. - [[User:Sardonac|Sardonac]]</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Mark&diff=693250 2009-08-16T04:16:54Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Wikiproject Religion}}<br /> <br /> == Where all Jesus's apostles children? ==<br /> <br /> I read something elsewhere about the question if John was a child, and now see Mark being considered a child. Is there any reference to a theologian who could back this up? Looking at one's writing style may be misleading - the material being written for a younger audience by an older individual would also have this effect. Alternatively, writing for the poor and less educated adults in the Roman Empire, hoping to bring them the Good News would have the same effect. Using this line of reasoning that simpler writing is from a younger audience, CS Lewis would be potentially a child rather than the 50 years old he was at the time of the writing... or Dr Seus would be considered an infant with his writing style.<br /> <br /> To me, making such wild assertions about the age of historical figures without any evidence whatsoever to back them up other than one person's reading of selected passages compromises the integrity of a trustworthy encyclopedia. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:18, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Peter was not a child. But the evidence is overwhelming that Mark was. Peter even referred to Mark as his son! Mark's mother was a close friend of the Apostles, who were themselves young, suggesting that Mark was quite young.<br /> <br /> : Participate in analyzing the evidence with us. All you need is an open mind!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::JohnnyS, you mention suspicion that John was not a child, but consider: John was a disciple of Jesus in apprx. 30-33 AD, and it is widely beleived that the Gospel of John was written by John 'around' 90 AD, and given life expectancies in those days, John couldn't have been an adult when Jesus was alive! Since John was the brother of James, this also tells us something about Jame's age at the time.<br /> ::There are of course disciples who weren't children - Peter was a fisherman, Matthew a tax collector, so they were definitely adults. But that we can determine their age at all goes to counter your claim that giving approximate ages for historical figures constitute &quot;wild assertions.&quot;<br /> ::Finally, it should be noted that Mark wasn't an apostle - although he was definitely a close disciple, since he hosted Jesus in his home. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::So a close disciple of Jesus and a child owned a home? Under the same dating system, the Gospel of Matthew was written between 75 AD and 80 AD. To have the Gospel of Mark written between 60 and 80 AD doesn't put him any more a child than Matthew. To have a 20 year old (with a 40 year old mother) in AD 30 living another 40 years is not unreasonable. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: Mark's mother would presumably been about the age of Jesus, or younger. So perhaps she was 30. Today one would expect her son to be less than 5 years old. In those days, an age of 10 for Mark would be typical. If Mark had been much older, then he would have been an Apostle. He wasn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Where is the reference for the age of Mark's mother? Why does she have to be the same age as Jesus? Why would Mark have been an Apostle if he was older? As mentioned by JacobB above, didn't Jesus have a number of disciples with no other criteria than they follow him (age not being a factor)? John 19:38 has St Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple of Christ, and yet he owned a tomb (not something a child would own). I really don't see any indication for age for any of these individuals. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, the evidence is overwhelming. An open mind is required to see it. If Mark had been an adult, then:<br /> <br /> * he likely would have been an Apostle<br /> * he would not have likely run away naked when confronted<br /> * his Gospel would have been more adult-like, as the others were<br /> * his mother would have likely been too old to be a close friend of Jesus<br /> * Mark would not likely have acted so impetuously in releasing his writing (Gospel) first, and in leaving Paul<br /> * Mark would not have been so repetitious in his writing, as in using the same term more than 40 times<br /> <br /> Proof in the sense of 2+2=4 is not available. But the evidence is overwhelming, and your resistance to accepting it begs this question: why do you insist on doubting it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :* There are other disciples who are landholder (and tomb holders) who were not Apostles. Age was not a factor.<br /> :* I assume you are referring to Mark 14:51-52... and if you were wearing a linen cloth and all the others ran and people garbed you, you wouldn't leave your clothes and run off too? I would - better to be alive and naked than at the hands of Jesus's abductors too.<br /> :* Elsewhere you stated that John's Gospel was childlike. Mark's Gospel is simple and concise - not childlike.<br /> :* I have friends who are twice my age, and half my age. Jesus was known for his compassion and I would be surprised if he selected his close friends based on his age.<br /> :* How is it impetuously to release a Gospel earlier in an effort to get the Good News out to people as soon as possible?<br /> :* Repetition is common in ancient works as an aid for memorization. &quot;Rosy-fingered dawn&quot; was repeated again and again by Homer in the Odyssey. Also be sure to not confuse using the same Greek term with the same English term. Agapaō (Strongs G25 as in Matthew 5:44) phileō (Strongs G5368 as in Matthew 23:6) are both translated as &quot;Love&quot;.<br /> :--[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:40, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> : I would also point to the &quot;if he was older he would have been an Apostle&quot; - St. John, the Apostle was an Apostle and yet you put him at [[Great Achievements of Teenagers|13 years old]]. So, apparently age isn't a factor in the selection of the Apostles. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:00, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == JohhnyS, are you the desperate atheist that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute JP Holding's work the Impossible Faith? ==<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, are you Johnny Skeptic? In other words, are you the desperate [[atheism|atheist]] that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute [[JP Holding]]'s work the Impossible Faith? I am referring to this: &quot;An [[Atheism|atheist]] paid $5,000 to have [[Richard Carrier]], a writer who contributes articles for [[Internet Infidels]], write a work which argued against Holding's essay ''The Impossible Faith''.[http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321][http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43795] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:10, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Mark's Dates ==<br /> <br /> I took a Milton course last year and just finished the book &quot;The Origin of Satan&quot; by Elaine Pagels and it seems that many biblical scholars and historians believe the author of Mark was writing sometimes around the revolt of 66CE. Has anybody else encountered this idea? I find it rather compelling and was curious whether or not a more distinct section on &quot;Authorship&quot; or &quot;Possible Historical Context&quot; should be added. --[[User:Sardonac|Sardonac]]<br /> <br /> : That might be a date for the ''final form'' of the [[Gospel of Mark]], but surely he wrote drafts well beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 15 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Well Pagels cites the fact some of the words and references he uses, in the context of the revolt, take on a different connotation. For example, Jesus remarks that he was arrested like a common thief or bandit when the same word has been found to refer to seditionists. Another specific examples is the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a judge who isn't nearly so much to blame as the Jews. This, in the context of the revolt, shows Mark writing while bearing in the the Romans would read his work. This angle is highlighted by other accounts of Pilate (non-biblical ones) depicting him as a cruel judge that was so unjust that he'd often crucify without trial. What I'm getting at is that although the bible contains the message of Christ our savior the Bible has passed through the pen of man, the motivations of man, and the history of man so I've always believed certain aspects of date/time/scale may be inaccurate. However such things don't truly dilute the message of Christ so it seems important to contextualize the message in the messengers and their environment. Yeah, sorry for the ramble. As for drafts I'm not sure the Gospel of Mark would have been written in the form of drafts. I figure the author, who may be the &quot;Mark&quot; we know, took notes over a long period and eventually compiled them for publication but was also very aware of events during his time. That meant writing while keeping in mind the Romans were looking for undercover seditionists, the Jewish Priests were gunning to put down the dissenting Christians, and with emphasis on the larger picture of Christ not actually being dead. --[[User:Sardonac|Sardonac]]</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Mark&diff=693248 2009-08-16T04:16:29Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Wikiproject Religion}}<br /> <br /> == Where all Jesus's apostles children? ==<br /> <br /> I read something elsewhere about the question if John was a child, and now see Mark being considered a child. Is there any reference to a theologian who could back this up? Looking at one's writing style may be misleading - the material being written for a younger audience by an older individual would also have this effect. Alternatively, writing for the poor and less educated adults in the Roman Empire, hoping to bring them the Good News would have the same effect. Using this line of reasoning that simpler writing is from a younger audience, CS Lewis would be potentially a child rather than the 50 years old he was at the time of the writing... or Dr Seus would be considered an infant with his writing style.<br /> <br /> To me, making such wild assertions about the age of historical figures without any evidence whatsoever to back them up other than one person's reading of selected passages compromises the integrity of a trustworthy encyclopedia. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:18, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Peter was not a child. But the evidence is overwhelming that Mark was. Peter even referred to Mark as his son! Mark's mother was a close friend of the Apostles, who were themselves young, suggesting that Mark was quite young.<br /> <br /> : Participate in analyzing the evidence with us. All you need is an open mind!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::JohnnyS, you mention suspicion that John was not a child, but consider: John was a disciple of Jesus in apprx. 30-33 AD, and it is widely beleived that the Gospel of John was written by John 'around' 90 AD, and given life expectancies in those days, John couldn't have been an adult when Jesus was alive! Since John was the brother of James, this also tells us something about Jame's age at the time.<br /> ::There are of course disciples who weren't children - Peter was a fisherman, Matthew a tax collector, so they were definitely adults. But that we can determine their age at all goes to counter your claim that giving approximate ages for historical figures constitute &quot;wild assertions.&quot;<br /> ::Finally, it should be noted that Mark wasn't an apostle - although he was definitely a close disciple, since he hosted Jesus in his home. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::So a close disciple of Jesus and a child owned a home? Under the same dating system, the Gospel of Matthew was written between 75 AD and 80 AD. To have the Gospel of Mark written between 60 and 80 AD doesn't put him any more a child than Matthew. To have a 20 year old (with a 40 year old mother) in AD 30 living another 40 years is not unreasonable. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: Mark's mother would presumably been about the age of Jesus, or younger. So perhaps she was 30. Today one would expect her son to be less than 5 years old. In those days, an age of 10 for Mark would be typical. If Mark had been much older, then he would have been an Apostle. He wasn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Where is the reference for the age of Mark's mother? Why does she have to be the same age as Jesus? Why would Mark have been an Apostle if he was older? As mentioned by JacobB above, didn't Jesus have a number of disciples with no other criteria than they follow him (age not being a factor)? John 19:38 has St Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple of Christ, and yet he owned a tomb (not something a child would own). I really don't see any indication for age for any of these individuals. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, the evidence is overwhelming. An open mind is required to see it. If Mark had been an adult, then:<br /> <br /> * he likely would have been an Apostle<br /> * he would not have likely run away naked when confronted<br /> * his Gospel would have been more adult-like, as the others were<br /> * his mother would have likely been too old to be a close friend of Jesus<br /> * Mark would not likely have acted so impetuously in releasing his writing (Gospel) first, and in leaving Paul<br /> * Mark would not have been so repetitious in his writing, as in using the same term more than 40 times<br /> <br /> Proof in the sense of 2+2=4 is not available. But the evidence is overwhelming, and your resistance to accepting it begs this question: why do you insist on doubting it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :* There are other disciples who are landholder (and tomb holders) who were not Apostles. Age was not a factor.<br /> :* I assume you are referring to Mark 14:51-52... and if you were wearing a linen cloth and all the others ran and people garbed you, you wouldn't leave your clothes and run off too? I would - better to be alive and naked than at the hands of Jesus's abductors too.<br /> :* Elsewhere you stated that John's Gospel was childlike. Mark's Gospel is simple and concise - not childlike.<br /> :* I have friends who are twice my age, and half my age. Jesus was known for his compassion and I would be surprised if he selected his close friends based on his age.<br /> :* How is it impetuously to release a Gospel earlier in an effort to get the Good News out to people as soon as possible?<br /> :* Repetition is common in ancient works as an aid for memorization. &quot;Rosy-fingered dawn&quot; was repeated again and again by Homer in the Odyssey. Also be sure to not confuse using the same Greek term with the same English term. Agapaō (Strongs G25 as in Matthew 5:44) phileō (Strongs G5368 as in Matthew 23:6) are both translated as &quot;Love&quot;.<br /> :--[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:40, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> : I would also point to the &quot;if he was older he would have been an Apostle&quot; - St. John, the Apostle was an Apostle and yet you put him at [[Great Achievements of Teenagers|13 years old]]. So, apparently age isn't a factor in the selection of the Apostles. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:00, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == JohhnyS, are you the desperate atheist that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute JP Holding's work the Impossible Faith? ==<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, are you Johnny Skeptic? In other words, are you the desperate [[atheism|atheist]] that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute [[JP Holding]]'s work the Impossible Faith? I am referring to this: &quot;An [[Atheism|atheist]] paid $5,000 to have [[Richard Carrier]], a writer who contributes articles for [[Internet Infidels]], write a work which argued against Holding's essay ''The Impossible Faith''.[http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321][http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43795] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:10, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Mark's Dates ==<br /> <br /> I took a Milton course last year and just finished the book &quot;The Origin of Satan&quot; by Elaine Pagels and it seems that many biblical scholars and historians believe the author of Mark was writing sometimes around the revolt of 66CE. Has anybody else encountered this idea? I find it rather compelling and was curious whether or not a more distinct section on &quot;Authorship&quot; or &quot;Possible Historical Context&quot; should be added. --[[User:Sardonac|Sardonac]]<br /> <br /> : That might be a date for the ''final form'' of the [[Gospel of Mark]], but surely he wrote drafts well beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 15 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Well Pagels cites the fact some of the words and references he uses, in the context of the revolt, take on a different connotation. For example, Jesus remarks that he was arrested like a common thief or bandit when the same word has been found to refer to seditionists. Another specific examples is the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a judge who isn't nearly so much to blame as the Jews. This, in the context of the revolt, shows Mark writing while bearing in the the Romans would read his work. This angle is highlighted by other accounts of Pilate (non-biblical ones) depicting him as a cruel judge that was so unjust that he'd often crucify without trial. What I'm getting at is that although the bible contains the message of Christ our savior the Bible has passed through the pen of man, the motivations of man, and the history of man so I've always believed certain aspects of date/time/scale may be inaccurate. However such things don't truly dilute the message of Christ so it seems important to contextualize the message in the messengers and their environment. Yeah, sorry for the ramble. As for drafts I'm not sure the Gospel of Mark would have been written in the form of drafts. I figure the author, who may be the &quot;Mark&quot; we know, took notes over a long period and eventually compiled them for publication but was also very aware of events during his time. That meant writing while keeping in mind the Romans were looking for undercover seditionists, the Jewish Priests were gunning to put down the dissenting Christians, and with emphasis on the larger picture of Christ not actually being dead.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jupiter&diff=693157 2009-08-15T23:38:33Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Planet<br /> | image=Jumpsas.jpg<br /> | caption=This processed color image of Jupiter was produced in 1990 by the U.S. Geological Survey from a Voyager image captured in 1979<br /> |symbol=Jupiter symbol.svg<br /> |discname=Known to ancients<br /> |origname=Roman king of gods&lt;ref name=nasa1&gt;&quot;[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&amp;Display=Overview Entry for Jupiter].&quot; ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |order=6<br /> |primary=Sun<br /> |periapsis=4.95 AU&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |apoapsis=5.46 AU&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |semimajor=5.203 AU&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;&lt;ref name=nasa2&gt;Williams, David R. &quot;[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html Jupiter Fact Sheet].&quot; National Space Science Data Center, [[NASA]], November 2, 2007. Accessed March 2, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |bode=5.2 AU&lt;ref name=calc&gt;Calculated&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |circumference=32.675 AU&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |eccentricity=0.048&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |sidereal=11.862 a&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;<br /> |synodic=398.88 da (1.092 a)&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;<br /> |orbitspeed=13.07 km/s&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;<br /> |inclination=1.305°&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |reference=the ecliptic<br /> |siderealday=9.925 h (0.414 da)&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;<br /> |solarday=9.9259 h&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;<br /> |axialtilt=3.13°&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |mass=1.8986 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; kg (317.705 * earth)&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |density=1,326 kg/m³&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |surfacegrav=22.88 m/s² (2.333 ''g'')&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |escapespeed=59.56 km/s&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |equatorradius =71,492 km&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |surfacearea=61,400,000,000 km² (120.375 * earth)&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |meantemp=152 K&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |moons=28<br /> |composition=90% hydrogen and 10% helium&lt;ref name=nasa1/&gt;<br /> |color=Colored latitudinal bands<br /> |albedo=0.52&lt;ref name=ssdphys&gt;&quot;[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par Planet Physical Characteristics].&quot; Solar System Dynamics, [[JPL]], [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |mfd=4.28 G &lt;ref name=jupiterfact&gt;&quot;[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html Jupiter Fact Sheet],&quot; [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 2, 2007. Accessed May 12, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |pmdm=1.55 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; N-m/T&lt;ref name=Humphreys&gt;Humphreys, D. R. &quot;[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields].&quot; ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |cmdm=1.79 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; N-m/T&lt;ref name=Humphreys/&gt;<br /> |mdt=45,469 a&lt;ref name=calc/&gt;<br /> |mhl=31,516 a&lt;ref name=calc/&gt;<br /> }}<br /> '''Jupiter''' is the fifth [[planet]] from the [[sun]], and the most massive. In fact, this [[gas giant]] is the largest body in the [[solar system]] except for the sun itself, and more than two times as massive as all the other planets combined. In composition it closely resembles a [[star]], so much so that some authorities hold that had it been eighty times as massive, it would have become a star.<br /> <br /> == Ancient knowledge and naming ==<br /> Named after the ruler of the Roman gods, Jupiter is large and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye. In fact it is the fourth-brightest object in the night sky, after the [[Sun]], the [[Moon]], and the planet [[Venus]].&lt;ref name=arnett&gt;Arnett, Bill. &quot;[http://www.nineplanets.org/jupiter.html Entry for Jupiter].&quot; ''The &lt;s&gt;Nine&lt;/s&gt; 8 Planets'', April 10, 2005. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; Jupiter is conspicuous and easy to recognize. An observer carrying 7-power field glasses (of a type used for birding or hunting) will see a round disk that shines steadily. An observer with a small telescope should also be able to resolve the [[Galilean moons]], as [[Galileo Galilei]] himself did. They will appear, as they did to Galileo, as &quot;stars&quot; traveling in &quot;formation&quot; with Jupiter and changing their positions relative to Jupiter in a single night of observation.<br /> <br /> The [[Babylonia]]ns believed that their god [[Marduk]] set Jupiter in the sky to guide the stars.&lt;ref name=nelson&gt;Nelson, Clark. &quot;[http://www.timeemits.com/HoH_Articles/399-Day_Mean_Synodic_Period_of_Jupiter.htm 399-day Mean Synodic Period of Jupiter].&quot; &lt;http://www.timeemits.com/&gt;, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; Jupiter might have had an influence in the invention of several ancient calendars, including the Mayan calendar, the Egyptian calendar, the ancient (pre-Hillel II) Hebrew calendar, and possibly the calendar in use (at least by the [[Seth]]ite generations of [[Adam]]) before the [[Great flood|Great Flood]]).&lt;ref name=nelson/&gt;<br /> <br /> The name of the Roman god derives from the Latin &quot;dyeu-pater&quot; and &quot;ius-pater.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jupiter&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Orbital characteristics ==<br /> Jupiter completes one slightly eccentric orbit around the [[Sun]] in 11.86 years, and returns to the same position in [[Earth]]'s night sky in roughly 399 years.&lt;ref name=nasa2/&gt;&lt;ref name=nelson/&gt; Its mean distance from the Sun is about 5.2 AU--almost exactly the distance predicted by the [[Titius-Bode law]] of planetary distances. Though Jupiter is the fifth ''planet'' from the Sun, it is actually the ''sixth'' object of a size requiring the assumption of a spheroidal shape. Hence ''n=6'' is the proper number to use in the Bode's Law formula.<br /> <br /> == Rotational characteristics ==<br /> Jupiter has a very short sidereal day of about 9.92 hours. However, its latitudinal cloud bands rotate at different speeds, and some of these appear to rotate retrograde. Astronomers once calculated the Jovian day from observations of the equatorial cloud band, but today they rely on the periodicity of Jupiter's magnetic field.&lt;ref name=nasa3&gt;Gierasch, Peter J., and Philip D. Nicholson. &quot;Jupiter.&quot; World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc. &lt;http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar293080.&gt; Hosted as &quot;[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html Entry for Jupiter],&quot; World Book at [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Physical characteristics ==<br /> Jupiter is about 318 times as massive as Earth, and has a radius of 71,492 km (44,423 miles). Its atmosphere is composed primarily of 86% [[hydrogen]], 14% [[helium]], and traces of [[methane]], [[ammonia]], [[phosphine]], [[water]], [[acetylene]], [[ethane]], [[germanium]], and [[carbon monoxide]].&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt; It is so thick that no record exists of the surface, if Jupiter has one in the traditional sense--though Jupiter might have a heavy-metal core having a composition similar to that of [[Earth]] but 20 to 30 times as massive.&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt;<br /> <br /> === The Great Red Spot and other storms ===<br /> The planet endures continual storms. The most famous of these is the Great Red Spot, which has raged for at least three hundred years. The most precise estimate of its duration is 342 years,&lt;ref name=Than&gt;Than, Ker. &quot;[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060731_red_spots.html Differences Spotted in Jupiter's Big Red Storms].&quot; &lt;http://www.space.com/&gt;, July 31, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; but this might refer merely to the first time that someone observed it with a telescope capable of resolving it. It is large enough to encompass the entirety of the [[Earth]] and rotates anticlockwise along Jupiter's equator. Winds at its edge circulate at 360 km/h&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt;, far faster than those of the most powerful [[hurricane]] ever recorded on Earth.<br /> <br /> === Radiation of heat ===<br /> Jupiter actually radiates 1.7 times the heat that strikes it from the Sun.&lt;ref name=Weisstein&gt;Weisstein, Eric W. &quot;[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Jupiter.html Jupiter].&quot; ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; This could be due to Kelvin-Helmholtz gravitational compression, a process that also limits the size that Jupiter can have.&lt;ref name=arnett/&gt; In this process, the planet's cooling causes it to compress, which in turn heats up Jupiter's core.<br /> <br /> == Magnetosphere ==<br /> Jupiter has a magnetic field about 14 times as strong as that of Earth. Specifically, its [[magnetic dipole moment]] amounts to 1.55 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; N-m/T, higher than that of any object except the [[Sun]]. It is so high, in fact, that by [[Russell Humphreys]]' model for planetary magnetic fields, Jupiter's field must have formed with ''all'' of its mass aligned for the maximum cumulative magnetic dipole moment, instead of the usual 25%. By this assumption, the magnetic dipole moment of Jupiter at creation must have been 1.79 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; N-m/T. The half-life of this field is longer than 31,500 Julian years.<br /> <br /> This field tends to shield Jupiter from the [[solar wind]]. However, the field has also trapped large numbers of radioactive particles in a Van-Allen-like radiation belt&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt; that actually encompasses the orbits of the seven innermost moons. The magnetic field extends beyond the far side of Jupiter for at least 700 million kilometers.&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt;<br /> <br /> The very strong magnetic field of Jupiter is extraordinary by any standard. The Humphreys model has passed two key tests of its predictive value, one at [[Uranus]] and the other at [[Neptune]].&lt;ref name=Humphreys2&gt;Humphreys, D. R. &quot;[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;action=view&amp;page=329 Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation].&quot; [[Institute for Creation Research]]. Accessed April 30, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; That model normally assumes that God formed any given celestial body initially out of water, with its molecules partially aligned for maximum cumulative effect, and then transmuted the molecules after the magnetic field was established. For most celestial bodies thus far observed, an alignment fraction of 25% suffices to establish a magnetic dipole moment at creation. But Jupiter's magnetic dipole moment is far too high to have resulted from an initial alignment of 25%. An alignment of 100% seems to be required, the highest fraction allowable and the highest fraction of all celestial bodies observed to date. This implies that God made Jupiter to be a beacon in the night sky, in more ways than merely by making it large.<br /> <br /> Jupiter's orbit is inclined 1.305 degrees to the ecliptic, so Jupiter appears, in turn, in each constellation of the Zodiac. In fact, its 399-day synodic year places it in a different constellation of the Zodiac at the same point in each succeeding year. Pratt&lt;ref name=Pratt&gt;Pratt, John C. &quot;[http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/zodiac.html The Constellations Tell of Christ].&quot; ''Meridian'', June 15, 2005. Accessed May 12, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt; shows that the members of the Zodiac, and a number of closely associated constellations, presage the life and ministry of [[Jesus Christ]]. If Jupiter is indeed a beacon, then it could not have been better placed.<br /> <br /> == Ring system ==<br /> Jupiter does have a ring, consisting of three components, called the halo, the main ring, and the gossamer ring. This ring lies entirely within the region occupied by the four innermost moons, and probably derives its substance from escaping dust from the two innermost moons, [[Metis]] and [[Adrastea]]. The average size of the ring particles is 10 microns, comparable in size to the particles in [[tobacco]] smoke.&lt;ref name=nasa4&gt;Harvey, Samantha. &quot;[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&amp;Display=Rings Jupiter:Rings].&quot; ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]], February 7, 2008. Accessed March 3, 2008.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Problems for uniformitarian theories ==<br /> <br /> Jupiter's sidereal day is less than ten Earth hours long. If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the [[nebula hypothesis|solar nebula]], then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum. The problem involves not merely the short sidereal day but also Jupiter's tremendous mass.<br /> <br /> The alternative theory is that Jupiter formed as a &quot;failed protostar&quot; at the center of its own nebula. This theory has several problems:<br /> <br /> # Jupiter never ignited, though its magnetic field is four times as strong as its mass would normally predict.<br /> # None of Jupiter's 63 moons is gaseous. Therefore a key event in the nebular sequence did not take place.<br /> # The four dwarf-planet-sized [[Galilean moons]] have vastly differing apparent geological &quot;ages&quot; coming from times estimated to be as disparate as ten million years to as recent as thirteen hundred (although the times cannot be fixed with any reliability).&lt;ref&gt;Fulbright, Jeannie. ''Exploring Creation with Astronomy.'' Apologia Educational Ministries, 2004.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Many of Jupiter's outer moons move retrograde to Jupiter's own day.<br /> <br /> == Exploration ==<br /> [[Galileo Galilei]] studied Jupiter extensively and in the process discovered its four largest moons--[[Io]], [[Europa (moon)|Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]], also known as the [[Galilean moons]]. Many other astronomers studied Jupiter from Earth-bound telescopes for hundreds of years. In the process they discovered twelve of Jupiter's moons and the Great Red Spot, but did not discover Jupiter's ring system.<br /> <br /> Seven spacecraft, all from the [[United States]], have visited Jupiter thus far. First to do so was [[Pioneer 10]] (December 3, 1973), which suffered tremendously from the radiation belt but still provided the evidence for Jupiter's [[magnetosphere]]. [[Pioneer 11]] was next (December, 1974) and took far better images of Jupiter and its Great Red Spot.<br /> <br /> [[Voyager 1]] (March, 1979) and [[Voyager 2]] (July, 1979) gave the first comprehensive views of Jupiter and the Jovian system, including the discovery of its rings, the discovery of four moons inside [[Io]], and the first extensive studies of the [[Galilean moons]].<br /> <br /> [[Ulysses]] (February 1992) made a brief flyby of Jupiter in order to place itself in polar orbit around the Sun. Nevertheless [[European Space Agency]] scientists used this opportunity to make further measurements of Jupiter's magnetosphere and the effect upon it by the solar wind.<br /> <br /> [[Galileo Project|Galileo]] reached Jupiter in 1995. It released a probe to dive into Jupiter's atmosphere; that probe transmitted for nearly an hour before the tremendous pressures crushed it. Galileo's orbiter remained in the system for nearly eight years, through two extensions of its mission, and conducted the most extensive surveys of the Galilean moons to day. Eventually, with the craft low on fuel, mission planners dived it into Jupiter to prevent its possibly crashing into [[Europa]], rupturing Europa's ice sheet, and contaminating the liquid ocean that astronomers now suspect lies a mere 10 km deep to the ice and could yet harbor [[extraterrestrial life]].&lt;ref name=nasa3/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Cassini-Huygens Mission|Cassini]] flew by Jupiter briefly in 2000 on its way to [[Saturn]]. While in the Jovian system, it took the image shown at the top of this article.<br /> <br /> The [[New Horizons mission]] will include a Jupiter flyby in its journey to the [[Pluto]] system.<br /> <br /> == References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> {{Solarsystem}}</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Mark&diff=693156 2009-08-15T23:34:21Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Wikiproject Religion}}<br /> <br /> == Where all Jesus's apostles children? ==<br /> <br /> I read something elsewhere about the question if John was a child, and now see Mark being considered a child. Is there any reference to a theologian who could back this up? Looking at one's writing style may be misleading - the material being written for a younger audience by an older individual would also have this effect. Alternatively, writing for the poor and less educated adults in the Roman Empire, hoping to bring them the Good News would have the same effect. Using this line of reasoning that simpler writing is from a younger audience, CS Lewis would be potentially a child rather than the 50 years old he was at the time of the writing... or Dr Seus would be considered an infant with his writing style.<br /> <br /> To me, making such wild assertions about the age of historical figures without any evidence whatsoever to back them up other than one person's reading of selected passages compromises the integrity of a trustworthy encyclopedia. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:18, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Peter was not a child. But the evidence is overwhelming that Mark was. Peter even referred to Mark as his son! Mark's mother was a close friend of the Apostles, who were themselves young, suggesting that Mark was quite young.<br /> <br /> : Participate in analyzing the evidence with us. All you need is an open mind!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::JohnnyS, you mention suspicion that John was not a child, but consider: John was a disciple of Jesus in apprx. 30-33 AD, and it is widely beleived that the Gospel of John was written by John 'around' 90 AD, and given life expectancies in those days, John couldn't have been an adult when Jesus was alive! Since John was the brother of James, this also tells us something about Jame's age at the time.<br /> ::There are of course disciples who weren't children - Peter was a fisherman, Matthew a tax collector, so they were definitely adults. But that we can determine their age at all goes to counter your claim that giving approximate ages for historical figures constitute &quot;wild assertions.&quot;<br /> ::Finally, it should be noted that Mark wasn't an apostle - although he was definitely a close disciple, since he hosted Jesus in his home. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::So a close disciple of Jesus and a child owned a home? Under the same dating system, the Gospel of Matthew was written between 75 AD and 80 AD. To have the Gospel of Mark written between 60 and 80 AD doesn't put him any more a child than Matthew. To have a 20 year old (with a 40 year old mother) in AD 30 living another 40 years is not unreasonable. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: Mark's mother would presumably been about the age of Jesus, or younger. So perhaps she was 30. Today one would expect her son to be less than 5 years old. In those days, an age of 10 for Mark would be typical. If Mark had been much older, then he would have been an Apostle. He wasn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Where is the reference for the age of Mark's mother? Why does she have to be the same age as Jesus? Why would Mark have been an Apostle if he was older? As mentioned by JacobB above, didn't Jesus have a number of disciples with no other criteria than they follow him (age not being a factor)? John 19:38 has St Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple of Christ, and yet he owned a tomb (not something a child would own). I really don't see any indication for age for any of these individuals. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, the evidence is overwhelming. An open mind is required to see it. If Mark had been an adult, then:<br /> <br /> * he likely would have been an Apostle<br /> * he would not have likely run away naked when confronted<br /> * his Gospel would have been more adult-like, as the others were<br /> * his mother would have likely been too old to be a close friend of Jesus<br /> * Mark would not likely have acted so impetuously in releasing his writing (Gospel) first, and in leaving Paul<br /> * Mark would not have been so repetitious in his writing, as in using the same term more than 40 times<br /> <br /> Proof in the sense of 2+2=4 is not available. But the evidence is overwhelming, and your resistance to accepting it begs this question: why do you insist on doubting it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> :* There are other disciples who are landholder (and tomb holders) who were not Apostles. Age was not a factor.<br /> :* I assume you are referring to Mark 14:51-52... and if you were wearing a linen cloth and all the others ran and people garbed you, you wouldn't leave your clothes and run off too? I would - better to be alive and naked than at the hands of Jesus's abductors too.<br /> :* Elsewhere you stated that John's Gospel was childlike. Mark's Gospel is simple and concise - not childlike.<br /> :* I have friends who are twice my age, and half my age. Jesus was known for his compassion and I would be surprised if he selected his close friends based on his age.<br /> :* How is it impetuously to release a Gospel earlier in an effort to get the Good News out to people as soon as possible?<br /> :* Repetition is common in ancient works as an aid for memorization. &quot;Rosy-fingered dawn&quot; was repeated again and again by Homer in the Odyssey. Also be sure to not confuse using the same Greek term with the same English term. Agapaō (Strongs G25 as in Matthew 5:44) phileō (Strongs G5368 as in Matthew 23:6) are both translated as &quot;Love&quot;.<br /> :--[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 23:40, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> : I would also point to the &quot;if he was older he would have been an Apostle&quot; - St. John, the Apostle was an Apostle and yet you put him at [[Great Achievements of Teenagers|13 years old]]. So, apparently age isn't a factor in the selection of the Apostles. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:00, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == JohhnyS, are you the desperate atheist that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute JP Holding's work the Impossible Faith? ==<br /> <br /> JohnnyS, are you Johnny Skeptic? In other words, are you the desperate [[atheism|atheist]] that paid Richard Carrier $5,000 to attempt to refute [[JP Holding]]'s work the Impossible Faith? I am referring to this: &quot;An [[Atheism|atheist]] paid $5,000 to have [[Richard Carrier]], a writer who contributes articles for [[Internet Infidels]], write a work which argued against Holding's essay ''The Impossible Faith''.[http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321][http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43795] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:10, 13 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Mark's Dates ==<br /> <br /> I took a Milton course last year and just finished the book &quot;The Origin of Satan&quot; by Elaine Pagels and it seems that many biblical scholars and historians believe the author of Mark was writing sometimes around the revolt of 66CE. Has anybody else encountered this idea? I find it rather compelling and was curious whether or not a more distinct section on &quot;Authorship&quot; or &quot;Possible Historical Context&quot; should be added. --[[User:Sardonac|Sardonac]]</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_mythology&diff=683770 2009-07-14T04:59:37Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>Maybe someone can clean up this rough copy and paste. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:25, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Requesting permission to clean up this article and add a section on syncretism. The current use of the term &quot;equivalent&quot; is very misleading. Also requesting permission to expand upon the basic outlines for each god. For example, a mention of the Bacchus cult and a greater distinction between the Greek and Roman gods.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jupiter&diff=683768 2009-07-14T04:52:34Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{simulsubmitted|user=[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;|site user=Temlakos}}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Name etymology ==<br /> <br /> The etymology for the Roman god Jupiter's name is false and irrelevant. I'm requesting permission to change it.<br /> <br /> :How so? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:43, 12 July 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I'm a classics student in Toronto and I've been studying Latin and Roman culture for five years now and I can vouch for &quot;Jupiter&quot; coming from a conflation of the Latin &quot;deus,&quot; &quot;ius,&quot; and &quot;pater.&quot; I've found a reliable source on this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jupiter although the source doesn't include the possible influence of &quot;ius.&quot; The current etymology is out of place (it belongs in the article for the actual god, not as a secondary etymology for a planet) and doesn't make sense. How could a Latin god, first worshiped even before contact with the Etruscans, be named after a Hebrew personage when the alphabet, progenitor language(s), and geographical locations are so vastly different?</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jupiter&diff=683345 2009-07-12T23:37:25Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>{{simulsubmitted|user=[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;|site user=Temlakos}}<br /> -- The etymology for the Roman god Jupiter's name is false and irrelevant. I'm requesting permission to change it.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli&diff=661525 2009-05-09T03:27:13Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Influence on Conservatives? ==<br /> <br /> :Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to &quot;Pocock&quot;, but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from. Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, &quot;We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do.&quot; The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was &quot;truly admirable in Machiavelli&quot; (the Discources), which are not at all &quot;Machiavellian&quot; (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that &quot;Principality easily becomes Tyranny.&quot; Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7B94yBtgAY&amp;sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=13&amp;ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::So his influence, I am to infer that his influence, on conservatives, is mainly that they used him to explain his influence on liberal Republicans? ''It has been a long day, Richard!'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 03:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::&quot;liberal&quot; in the 19th century sense, which is like libertarianism today. The influence on 2009 conservatives was this: Machiavelli's ideas on civic duty and opposition to corruption are deply engrained in America thanks to the idea of [[republicanism]]. It's a political philosophy after which the GOP names itself. Jefferson also called his party the &quot;Republican&quot; (or Democratic-Republican) party. RepublicISM means fears of tyranny, fear of corruption, distrust of politicians, and the need to be an active citizen, esp bear arms in wartime and vote in elections. We all share that today and (to a large degree) it comes from Machiavelli (and others too, but he was very important). This &quot;republican&quot; line of Machiavelli's thought is totally different from his line of thought in &quot;The Prince&quot; which advocates tyranny--he argued both black and white! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Sounds as if he would today be one of the highest ranking members of Congress......as the prerequisite is being able to argue both sides, while talking out of both sides of your mouth. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Was Machiavelli writing about his [[ideal]]s, i.e., what the best possible ruler ought to do? Or was he writing for his time and place? I heard that his ideas were meant to apply only to Italy of the early [[Renaissance]] era (which figured in several popular Shakespearean plays). <br /> <br /> :Wasn't he only offering specifically tailored and pragmatic advice rather than timeless &quot;do this everywhere and at all times&quot; principles? Does the idea of [[lesser of two evils]] apply?<br /> <br /> :In other words, did Machiavelli actually '''recommend''' that rulers be &quot;Machiavellian&quot;, as an ideal of government? I don't think so, any more than [[Pollyanna]] (in the book or even the Disney movie) practiced &quot;unreasonable or blind optimism.&quot; [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollyanna] And [[Uncle Tom]]'s attitude was never &quot;to curry favor with whites&quot; but was manifestly an expression of his Christian principles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Ed raises a very good point. Was M telling tyrants how to do it? or was he warning people &quot;if you don't have a republic you will get a tyrant and here's how he will mistreat you.&quot; Scholars have been debating this for years and no one is sure. I incline to the &quot;warning&quot; side because in fact no tyrant needs his advice--they do it naturally, but good citizens do need to be warned. ...speaking of Shakespeare: Macbeth teaches the audience exactly how to be a bad king, but nobody says Shaks. was writing a guidebook for tyrants. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Likewise, [[Hamlet]] shows how to fulfill the classic Greek ideal of avenging your father's murder, but for me it's a lesson in the [[unintended consequences]]. The prince murders his girlfriend's father (which drives her to suicide) - bad start for a poorly thought-out plan. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We don't even want to go there, Ed....Hamlet, and his ''issues''! Good morning, BTW. :-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> RJJensen, I appreciate your clarification, but where do you get your claim that Machiavelli influence any conservatives, or conservative thought? I have never, ever, ever heard a single conservative cite Machiavelli in any way, except perhaps to criticize Machiavellianism (and even that mention is almost non-existent).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::not many people these days read Machiavelli's Discourses, but the Founding Fathers all did, and they incorporated his ideas directly and those that came via the English &quot;country party&quot;. Ideas like service in the militia, for example, also come from him--and especially the idea that politicians are power-hungry princes that have to be watched at all times. Lots of conservative intellectual powerhouses write about him--for example Leo Strauss and the Straussians (Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Harvey Mansfield) also Willmore Kendall, Paul Rahe, Gordon Wood, and several National review writers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: I just searched the Federalist Papers, the voluminous explanation and defense of our constitutional system by our Founders, and there is not a single reference to Machiavelli or Machiavellian. As to your list of &quot;conservative intellectual powerhouses,&quot; I don't recognize any of them as being Reagan-type conservatives. Harvey Mansfield may come closest, but I'd be surprised if he were conservative on most leading social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: However, there is also not a single reference to John Locke, who was an enormously large influence, in the Federalist Papers. As for Ed's question, it's believe it's generally accepted that Machiavelli was writing for the specific circumstances of a fractured Italy, as he desired an enlightened prince to unify it through necessary means and then give control to a new republican body. By the way, can anyone explain why I was blocked for engaging in this discussion? [[User:PAuber|PAuber]] 12:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Well, fine, but there's no doubt that Locke influenced the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., [http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/timeline/chronology.html] There is doubt about Machiavelli's influence on them.<br /> <br /> ::::: I see no record of your being blocked, but you will be blocked if you continue to delete information from the lectures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I don't think Jensen was saying Machiavelli ''himself'' was an influence, but that one or two of the ideas he advocated was also adopted by the [[Founding Fathers]]. So a search of the author's name won't show anything. <br /> <br /> RJ, could you expound again on the ideas which Machiavelli and the Founders ''both'' liked? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Responding to Ed-- M's influence can be seen in the ideas that the good citizen has to watch out for politicians, &amp; has to take part in politics. M. was the major porponent of the citizens militia (as oppose to standing armies or mercenries) as the best defense and the need for citizens to join the militia (which is now the National Guard). The argument by historians is that Machiavelli had a major direct influence on the English &quot;country party&quot; which provided the main intellectual base for the American Revolution. That is, Americans absorb Machiavelli, Locke, Hume, Harrington, Montesquieu etc through the founding fathers rather than by directly reading these people in 2009.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: The flaw in that argument is that Machiavelli was long viewed with disdain, while the other political philosophers were not. Moreover, there's nothing special about an armed citizenry that should be attributed to Machiavelli in particular, as opposed to countless others political commentators going back to feudal times who felt the same way.<br /> <br /> ::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of &quot;neoconservatives.&quot; Now it's '''machiavellianism''' that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::Thanks for the stimulus :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A parting shot, not intended to re-open a closed issue: <br /> *Perhaps Machiavelli was evading censorship by clothing his critique in (apparent) praise. I gather [[Jonathan Swift]] used satire to get political points across in the era before [[freedom of press]] became the norm in the Christian West. If so, then I guess we can thank God that we now live in an era where we can speak our minds (even in an international forum such as this encyclopedia-writing project) without fear of retribution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Featured article ==<br /> <br /> This is an excellent pick for being a featured article - everyone who's worked on this - RJJenson especially- awesome job.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:39, 2 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> The introduction contains some biased language and comments and I created an account specifically because it does not appear to be objective. I acknowledge this site has a conservative viewpoint but comments like &quot;the best prose writer&quot; are completely unnecessary and could easily be changed into &quot;considered one of the best prose writers of his time in Italy, Mr/Ms. X writes &quot;abc Machiavelli's magnificent prose style xyz.&quot; Furthermore, as a student who has studied Machiavelli, I found some comments to be incorrect. For example, &quot;which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; whereby a ruler can gain power (the &quot;means&quot;) in any deceitful or unjust manner possible in order to achieve his often undisclosed goals (the &quot;end&quot;)&quot; is very poorly done. A) according to Machiavelli a just Prince would be morally justified in taking power because the betterment of citizen's lives justified the Prince's sordid means. Furthermore, a true Machiavellian Prince would not need to &quot;disclose&quot; it's goals as role, and goals, of a true Prince were already outlined by Machiavelli. Other statements such as &quot;For that matter, no tyrant has ever needed the book to get ideas how to oppress people&quot; and &quot;Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. The Prince was a warning that it could happen like this if citizens let down their guard&quot; and other non-cited statements of speculation don't contribute to the article. Lastly, the statement &quot;major positive influence of&quot; is unclear as it does not illustrate what a &quot;positive&quot; influence is and is thus vacuous. --- {{unsigned|Sardonac}} --- 21:49, 4 May 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> ::thanks for the comments. The section was written by a professional historian and should pass muster for a popular encyclopedia. For example, the prose style is widely hailed. The article reflects the current scholarly literature that is cited. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Mr. Sardonicus must be bored up there north of you in Toronto, Richard. I know that you, like me, cannot wait to see their substantial contributions here, to match their obviously ponderous intellect. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary. Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing. All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject. Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor. Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article in order that it remain as strictly factual as possible.<br /> :::::first let's see some proof that you are capapable of good writing. Try writing a new article on a topic of your choice and we'll see.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Why were my edits removed? I corrected everything from the intro, including grammar and removing useless statements like &quot;A politician and writer based in Florence of The Renaissance.&quot; I also removed &quot;Was he a Machiavellian?&quot; and shifted it into a &quot;Why he wrote his books&quot; piece so that interpretations of his work could have their own section.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli&diff=661418 2009-05-08T23:16:48Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Nicolo.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Portrait of Machiavelli by Santi di Tito.]]<br /> <br /> '''Niccolò Machiavelli''' (May 3, 1469 – June 21, 1527) was a leading [[Renaissance]] era political theorist and lauded Italian writer. As a politician and writer based in [[Florence]] he is best known for his book ''The Prince'', which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; whereby a ruler may gain power (the &quot;means&quot;) by using any deceitful or unjust method in order to achieve his goals (the &quot;end&quot;). During his time and for long afterward, Machiavelli was considered to have been inspired by the devil, and his name has been used for centuries to describe the use or approval of unscrupulous, self-serving political action. ''The Prince'' made '''&quot;Machiavellian&quot;''' a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation, as in a politician who spends all his time and effort obtaining and retaining power for himself.<br /> <br /> Whether Machiavelli intended ''The Prince'' to be an actual guide book on how to be a ruthless tyrant or wrote it as a warning to republican citizens is unclear. While the book was written in the form of a guide for princes, there is no actual prince involved, unlike his other guide books. Some scholars argue that no tyrant has ever needed the book to learn how to oppress their people and that this idea points toward Machiavelli as writing to protect the people from tyranny. Furthermore, many scholars agree that citizens do need a guide to tyranny so that they may easily recognize it and fight to keep their republican institutions and freedoms. Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. <br /> <br /> In other books he took an alternate view, emphasizing that when a state does not have a Prince (a king), the people must have civic virtue. Machiavelli's work ''Discourses on Livy'' is a major influence of modern conservative thought because of its impact on [[civic humanism]]. For example, he wrote that a citizen has a duty to oppose corruption and, when called upon, fight for his country. His ideas on [[republicanism]] strongly influenced Western republican thought on the duties of good citizenship and can be traced through American history from the days of [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[James Madison]] an into the 21st century.&lt;ref&gt;Paul A. Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==Biography==<br /> Machiavelli's father was a Florentine lawyer of moderate means, who came from an old and noble family. He supervised the superb humanistic education the boy received in the classics, literature, philosophy, and law. <br /> <br /> From the age of 20-29 he worked in Rome, employed in the banking business. In 1498 Machiavelli was elected to the Florentine chancery (&quot;civil service,&quot; in modern terms), as secretary and second chancellor. The city deliberately gave preference for top positions to well-educated humanists, even more than experience or political connections. He was the staff aide to the Ten of War, the committee responsible for Florence's foreign and diplomatic relations. He acted as secretary to its ambassadors and drafted detailed reports on foreign affairs. He served until 1512, when the Spanish overthrew the Republic. <br /> <br /> He married Marietta Corsini in 1501, who bore him six children, and suffered his infidelities with patience; she outlived him by a quarter of a century. <br /> <br /> Machiavelli devoted himself with single-minded intensity to the grueling and poorly paid service of the Republic. In 1507 he added the role of chancellor of the Nove di Milizia (Nine of the Militia), a magistracy he fought to create because Florence needed a citizen army. He argued that putting every citizen in arms was much better than using mercenary troops which, he said, were largely responsible for the military weakness of most Italian states. He did create and train a citizen army, but it did poorly in battle in 1512.<br /> <br /> ===Florentine diplomacy===<br /> Italy was a scene of intense political conflict involving four dominant city-states (Florence, Milan, Venice, and Naples), along with the [[Papacy, history|Papacy]], [[France, history|France]], Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire. <br /> <br /> When Machiavelli was growing up Florence was under the control of [[Lorenzo de Medici]]. Italy was invaded in 1494 by Charles VIII of France, who forced the [[Medici]] family to flee. A republic was established but it immediately came under the dictatorship of religious fanatic [[Girolamo Savonarola]]. The people turned against the monk and executed him in 1498.<br /> [[File:Niccolo Machiavelli Uffizi.jpg|left|280px]]<br /> Machiavelli was a trusted advisor to the head of the republic, Piero Soderini, who sent him on numerous diplomatic missions. Although he never had decisive authority, Machiavelli's missions often proved to be of considerable delicacy and importance. They included visits to several courts. In 1500 he spent six months at the court of [[Louis XII]] of France, to find out the terms on which the king would help Florence fight its war against the rebellious subject-city of Pisa. Florence depended on its powerful ally to maintain its independence against powerful foes, but France thought Florence was a poorly governed, small weak state.&lt;ref&gt; Skinner, ''Machiavelli'' (2000) pp 8-9&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> He spent some four months at the court of [[Cesare Borgia]] (1475-1507), the aggressive young Spanish duke who kept seizing territories across Italy and demanded an alliance with Florence. The duke went out of his way to expound his policies and the ambitions underlying them and Machiavelli was greatly impressed. The duke, he reported, is &quot;superhuman in his courage&quot;, as well as being a man of grand designs, who &quot;thinks himself capable of attaining anything he wants&quot;. Moreover, his actions are no less striking than his words, for he &quot;controls everything by himself&quot;, governs &quot;with extreme secrecy&quot;, and decides and executes his plans with devastating suddenness. Machiavelli saw that Borgia was no mere upstart but someone who &quot;must now be regarded as a new power in Italy.&quot; Borgia was the most ruthless prince in Italy and became the model for ''The Prince.''&lt;ref&gt; Skinner, ''Machiavelli'' (2000) p. 11&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> At Rome, in 1503, he kept an eye on the election of a new pope ([[Julius II]]); and at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian in 1507 he discussed the terms of a payment which the Emperor had demanded from Florence. Borgia, Machiavelli noted in ''The Prince'' ch 7, put excessive confidence in his own &quot;fortune&quot; (luck), was outmaneuvered by Pope Julius II, and expelled from Italy. Machiavelli, who strongly disliked the political power of the Church, suggests Borgia should have destroyed the papacy in order to stay in power.&lt;ref&gt; See Scott and Sullivan (1994).&lt;/ref&gt; Most historians agree he was very hostile to organized Christianity and profoundly anti-Christian because it made men humble, unmanly, and feeble. Christianity, he concluded:<br /> :&quot;Has glorified more humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It also places the highest good in humility, lowliness, and contempt of human things: the [Roman pagan philosophy] places it in the greatness of soul, the strength of body, and all the other things which make men very brave.&quot;&lt;ref&gt; ''Discourses'' [http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy2.htm#2:02 book 2 chapter 2, online]&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> However, there is a dissent that suggests he really sought to reform the Church.&lt;ref&gt; For the minority view see Sebastian de Grazia, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679743421/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&amp;keywords=christianity&amp;go.x=0&amp;go.y=0&amp;go=Go%21# ''Machiavelli in Hell'' (1989) page 115 online ] &lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Machiavelli was an unusually keen observer. In writing his books during retirement he incorporated verbatim into the ''Discourses'' and especially ''The Prince,'' the evaluations, and even the epigrams, that he prepared as a working diplomat.<br /> <br /> When the Spanish took over in 1512, reinstalled the Medicis and ended the republican experiment, Machiavelli was seen was a dangerous opposition leader. He was dismissed from his post, tortured and released from imprisonment shortly afterwards. He then retired from public life to his modest family property for the next six years in an effort to provide for his wife and children.<br /> <br /> ==Author==<br /> By 1518 Machiavelli was giving public lectures of his written work, particularly the ''Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livius'' and ''The Art of War''. Only after his death were his great books published: The ''Discourses'' (in 1531) and ''The Prince'' (1532). In the last period of his life he received an annual grant from the Pope to write his history of Florence and to improve the defenses of the city. However, in 1527 the army of the [[Holy Roman Empire]] sacked Rome and the Pope was taken prisoner. At the same time the Papal government of Florence was overthrown and once again became a Republic. Although known as a committed Republican, he found it hard to gain back the favor of the Republicans because of his active collaboration with the last government. <br /> <br /> Shortly after the coup Machiavelli, disappointed in not being able to play a more active role in the political life of the city, died and left his family in poverty. <br /> <br /> ===The Discourses===<br /> ''The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius'' is Machiavelli's fullest discussion on his views on the practice of politics and government, and on the theories that should guide that practice. It was written in the same period as his more well known work, ''The Prince'' (1513-1519 approx.) The latter is a brief handbook on for the use of rulers, the former is an extended commentary on the first ten of thirty five books that remain of Livy's History of Rome, making him an important classical scholar in addition to his contributions to political philosophy.<br /> <br /> Machiavelli's ''Discourses,'' is the work of a staunch republican. It advises citizens of a republic how to preserve their liberty and avoid corruption. He concludes that self-government is the best guarantee of security and prosperity, noting that the interests of the people and the politicians are often antithetical, and that citizens should have a healthy distrust of politicians. The voice of the people he likens to the voice of God.&lt;ref&gt; See Femia (2004), pp 11-12, 69&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Military strategy===<br /> ''The Art of War'' is the first major work on modern military thought, as the world's first systematic treatise on military strategy.&lt;ref&gt;Although the Greeks invented military history, and the Chinese were famous for collections of aphorisms. European military thought was most influenced by Machiavelli. Peter Peret et al, eds. ''Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age'' (1986), esp. ch 1 by Felix Gilbert, &quot;Machiavelli&quot;.&lt;/ref&gt; His only major book that appeared before Machiavelli's death. its seven volumes examines military strategy and the relationship between war and politics.&lt;ref&gt;Christopher Lynch, in Introduction to ''Art of War'' (2003) p. xiii&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> Italy could not be freed by hiring soldiers because: <br /> :&quot;Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. And if a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure; for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; they are brave among friends; among enemies they are cowards; they have no fear of God, they keep no faith with men; and your downfall is deferred only so long as the attack is deferred; and in peace you are plundered by them, in war by your enemies. The reason for this is that they have no other love nor other motive to keep them in the field than a meager wage, which is not enough to make them want to die for you. They love being your soldiers when you are not making war, but when war comes they either flee or desert.&lt;ref&gt; ''The Prince'' ch 12. Florence indeed had a bad experience but most historians feel that in general the mercenary system usually worked effectively. Skinner, ''Machiavelli'' (2000) p 36. &lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Allies were not much better, for, &quot;the arms of another man either slide off your back, weigh you down, or tie you up.&quot; &lt;ref&gt; ''The Prince'' ch 13&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Machiavelli was the great promoter of the citizens' militia. He organized the first one in Florence and examined it in detail, concluding that the defence of a republic depended on the fighting ability and willingness of its citizens. Hired armies or mercenaries, he concluded, could not defend freedom. His ideas influenced the British &quot;County Party&quot; and the Americans before 1776 as they prepared to use their militias to defend freedom.&lt;ref&gt; Gilbert, &quot;Machiavelli&quot; in Paret, ed. ''Makers of Modern Strategy'' pp. 19-22&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===The Prince===<br /> The [[Middle Ages]] saw many books of advice for princes, all of which explained that to be successful the prince had to lead a virtuous life. Machiavelli explained that in the real world it was just the opposite. The virtuous got trampled and the vicious won out, especially if they covered their tracks. &quot;Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.&quot;&lt;ref&gt; ''The Prince'' ch. 15&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> As for personal integrity:<br /> :&quot;Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word....But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic....Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.&quot;&lt;ref&gt; ''The Prince'' ch. 18&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Machiavelli uses &quot;virtù&quot; to refer to the range of personal qualities, such as ruthlessness and the flexibility to rapidly respond to changing circumstances regardless of past promises, that the prince will need to keep in power and achieve great results. However, this &quot;virtù&quot; has nothing in common with moral virtue. <br /> <br /> The ''The Prince'' advocated desperate measures for a desperate situation; Machiavelli's ridiculed half-measures and his dramatic statements and antithesis combined to produce bold and startling generalizations. Politics, he argued, is an art that is independent of morality and religion in its necessary methods. He has often been charged with cynicism for trying to discover permanently valid rules for political behavior based on observation of how men do in fact behave rather than on moral evaluation of how they ought to behave. That is, he advocated &quot;realism&quot; rather than &quot;idealism&quot; as a research technique in political science.<br /> <br /> Machiavelli discovered the laws of politics by observing diplomacy firsthand and studying history --from what he called his &quot;long experience of modern affairs and continuous study of the ancient world.&quot; However, scholars have concluded that he was not actually empirical; he formed conclusions first then sought out examples in history. <br /> <br /> At the end ''The Prince'' appeals urgently for strong leadership to create a powerful native state and free Italy from foreign domination. To free Italy required ruthless action, he argued. <br /> <br /> ====Impact of ''The Prince''====<br /> The practical influence of his advice on actual politicians was minimal; it was first translated into English only in 1640, after a century. Few politicians needed to read a manual on how to manipulate people; usually it was the critic of a politician who complained he acted in Machiavellian fashion. <br /> <br /> Machiavelli did influence Italian nationalists during the [[Risorgimento]] (unification movement) of the 19th century and under Fascism. They tended to misread him as a proponent of the centralized Italian state; rather, his patriotism was devoted to the city-state rather than the nation.<br /> <br /> Machiavelli was not thoroughly consistent. Some contradictions include the a despairing view of the nature of man coupled with a fervent belief in the ability of a leader possessed of virtù to liberate Italy from foreign domination; this with the backing of the people, despite former evidences of the people's corruptibility.<br /> ===History of Florence===<br /> The ''History of Florence'' (1925) displayer's dramatic power as the patriotic reader is swept along from the origins of Italian medieval civilization to the threshold of the French invasions at the end of the 15th century. He is harshly critical of the negative role of the Catholic Church --that is, the papacy.<br /> <br /> The major themes in ''History of Florence'' are the necessity of basing strong government on ultimate consent, and the inevitable corruption of the state if it tolerates political factions. As a scholar Machiavelli relied heavily on the details as related by earlier chroniclers, but he shaped and combined his material with the purpose of discovering the true causes of historical events as revealed by the psychology of individual persons and the conflicting interests of classes; he used history to provide lessons which he thought remained permanently valid. He was one of the first historians to ignore the role of divine intervention in shaping history, a mark of his commitment to [[Humanism]].<br /> <br /> ==Contributions to Political Philosophy==<br /> Machiavelli was in many respects not an innovator. His largest political work seeks to bring back a rebirth of the Ancient [[Roman Republic]]; its values, virtues and principles the ultimate guiding authority of his political vision. Machiavelli is essentially a restorer of something old and forgotten. The [[republicanism]] he focused on, especially the theme of civic virtue, became one of the dominant political themes of the modern world, and was a central part of the foundation of [[Republicanism, U.S.|American political values]].<br /> <br /> Machiavelli studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. To an extent he admits that the old tradition was true - men are obliged to live virtuously as according to [[Aristotle]]s [[Virtue Ethics]] principle. However, he denies that living virtuously necessarily leads to happiness. Machiavelli viewed misery as ''one of the vices that enables a prince to rule'' &lt;ref&gt;Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey, ''History of Political Philosophy'' (Chicago, 1987) p. 300&lt;/ref&gt; Machiavelli states boldly in The Prince, ''The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.'' &lt;ref&gt;Niccolò Machiavelli, ''The Prince'', p. 60&lt;/ref&gt; In much of Machiavelli's work, it seems that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.<br /> <br /> Hans Baron was the most influential scholar to study Machiavelli. Najemy (1996) examines Baron's ambivalent portrayal, arguing that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between ''The Prince'' and the ''Discourses'' and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the ''Discourses''. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th-century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.<br /> <br /> Pocock (1981) traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th-century Florence through 17th-century England and Scotland to 18th-century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop. However, Paul Rahe (1992) takes issue with Pocock on the origins and argues Machiavelli's republicanism was not rooted in antiquity but was is entirely novel and modern. Scholars have argued that [[James Madison followed Machiavelli's republicanism when he (and Jefferson) set up the [[Democratic-Republican Party]] in the 1790s to oppose what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they feared [[Alexander Hamilton]] was creating with the [[Federalist Party]].&lt;ref&gt; Gary Rosen in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&amp;p=S008#reader-link p. 231 online]&lt;/ref&gt; Conservative historians likewise conclude that [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s republicanism was &quot;deeply in debt&quot; to Machiavelli, whom he praised.&lt;ref&gt; Rahe, ''Jefferson's Machiavellian Political Science'' in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link p. 209 online] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Realist or evil?===<br /> For four centuries scholars have debated whether Machiavelli was the theorist of evil, or just being realistic. ''The Prince'', made the word &quot;Machiavellian&quot; a byword for deceit, despotism and political manipulation. Some historians argue Machiavelli had a secret (or very subtle) message that explains away the ugly implications of the plain text, saying that Machiavelli really favored virtue after all and was just trying to trick princes into policies that would lead to their overthrow, not their triumph.&lt;ref&gt;John Langton and Mary G. Deitz, &quot;Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince&quot; ''The American Political Science Review,'' Vol. 81, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 1277-1288 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1962589 at JSTOR] &lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> [[Leo Strauss]], the American neo-conservative, denounces him as a &quot;teacher of evil,&quot; because he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.&lt;ref&gt; Leo Strauss, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226777022/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&amp;keywords=teacher+of+evil&amp;go.x=16&amp;go.y=8 ''Thoughts on Machiavelli'' (1957), p 9 online] &lt;/ref&gt; Italian anti-fascist philosopher Benedetto Croce (1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a &quot;realist&quot; or &quot;pragmatist&quot; who accurately states that moral values in reality do not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make.&lt;ref&gt; Benedetto Croce, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1406739774/ref=sib_books_pg?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=Benedetto%20Croce%20machiavelli&amp;p=S02H&amp;checkSum=%252FombMxeAC6hIVUToYvbv9hivFP6U3vxoUdbCmtPQco4%253D ''My Philosophy'' (1949), p. 142 online]&lt;/ref&gt; German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a political scientist—-a Galileo of politics--in distinguishing between the &quot;facts&quot; of political life and the &quot;values&quot; of moral judgment.&lt;ref&gt; Ernst Cassirer, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300000367/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&amp;keywords=machiavelli+galileo ''The Myth of the State,'' (1946) p.136, online]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Thoughts on the State===<br /> <br /> Machiavelli was not a political philosopher in the ordinary sense. He did not try either to define the [[State]] or to justify its existence. His views about the State are implied as matter of course when he describes how a ruler may retain or acquire control, how he is liable to lose it, which qualities are necessary for a republic to remain strong, or how precarious a Republic’s liberty can be at times. Medieval thinkers had taken the political authority of any prince or king in the community of Christendom to be necessarily limited – by the Emperor (In the case of the [[Holy Roman Empire]]), by the power of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] in spiritual matters and by the power of natural law (Universal moral principles) that determine the boundaries of justice. Machiavelli did not challenge this long held traditional position. He ignored it, writing as a matter of fact that the state had absolute authority. He thought that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security required it.<br /> <br /> Machiavelli further differed from medieval thinkers in taking for granted that the power of the state is a single whole and can be centrally controlled, irrespective of whether the state is a monarchy or a republic. He preferred a republic because he preferred liberty. However, he believed that in order for the liberty of republicanism to function, it needed a citizenry who were independent and courageous (Virtuous). Machiavelli believed these qualities were rare and existed hardly anywhere in the Europe of his day since the Romans.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> See the more detailed guide in the Bibliography below<br /> * Bondanella, Peter, and Mark Musa, eds. ''The Portable Machiavelli'' (1979)<br /> * Burd, L. A., &quot;Florence (II): Machiavelli&quot; in ''Cambridge Modern History'' (1902), vol. I, ch. vi. pp 190-218 [http://books.google.com/books?id=d7kFAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=RA3-PA720&amp;dq=Burd++Machiavelli+intitle:Cambridge+intitle:Modern+intitle:History&amp;lr=&amp;num=30&amp;as_brr=0#PRA1-PA190,M1 online edition]<br /> * de Grazia, Sebastian. ''Machiavelli in Hell'' (1989), highly favorable intellectual biography; won the Pulitzer Prize [http://www.amazon.com/Machiavelli-Hell-Sebastian-Grazia/dp/0679743421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1208471341&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Jensen, De Lamar, ed. ''Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?'' (1960) essays by scholars [http://www.questia.com/read/34624137?title=Machiavelli%3a%20Cynic%2c%20Patriot%2c%20or%20Political%20Scientist%3f online edition]<br /> * Machiavelli, Niccolò. ''The Prince,'' ed. by Peter Bondanella (1998) 101pp [http://www.questia.com/read/97573377?title=The%20Prince online edition]<br /> * Machiavelli, Niccolò. ''The Prince,'' (1908 edition translated by W. K. Marriott) [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232 Gutenberg edition]<br /> * Skinner, Quentin. ''Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/22093813?title=Machiavelli%3a%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction online edition], good place to start<br /> * Viroli, Maurizio. ''Niccolo's Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Niccolos-Smile-Machiavelli-Maurizio-Viroli/dp/0374221871/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199685890&amp;sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Viroli, Maurizio. ''Machiavelli'' (1998) 252pp[http://www.questia.com/read/23271960?title=Machiavelli online edition]<br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> ==Biographies==<br /> * Burd, L. A., &quot;Florence (II): Machiavelli&quot; in ''Cambridge Modern History'' (1902), vol. I, ch. vi. pp 190-218 [http://books.google.com/books?id=d7kFAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=RA3-PA720&amp;dq=Burd++Machiavelli+intitle:Cambridge+intitle:Modern+intitle:History&amp;lr=&amp;num=30&amp;as_brr=0#PRA1-PA190,M1 online Google edition]<br /> * de Grazia, Sebastian. ''Machiavelli in Hell'' (1989), highly favorable intellectual biography; won the Pulitzer Prize; difficult and not the place to start[http://www.amazon.com/Machiavelli-Hell-Sebastian-Grazia/dp/0679743421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1208471341&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Hale, J. R. ''Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy'' (1961) [http://www.questia.com/read/10359207?title=Machiavelli%20and%20Renaissance%20Italy online edition]<br /> * Hulliung, Mark. ''Citizen Machiavelli'' (1983)<br /> * Ridolfi, Roberto. ''The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli'' (1963), a standard scholarly biography<br /> * Schevill, Ferdinand. ''Six Historians'' (1956), pp. 61-91<br /> * Skinner, Quentin. ''Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/22093813?title=Machiavelli%3a%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction online edition]<br /> * Villari, Pasquale. ''The Life and Times of Niccolò Machiavelli'' (2 vol 1892), good older biography; [http://books.google.com/books?id=SvzZ51e1ktsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=intitle:machiavelli+inauthor:Pasquale+inauthor:Villari&amp;lr=&amp;num=30&amp;as_brr=0 online Google edition vol 1]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=Jv0FN8fOEHIC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=intitle:machiavelli+inauthor:Pasquale+inauthor:Villari&amp;lr=&amp;num=30&amp;as_brr=0#PPP2,M1 online Google edition vol 2]<br /> * Viroli, Maurizio. ''Niccolo's Smile : A Biography of Machiavelli'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Niccolos-Smile-Machiavelli-Maurizio-Viroli/dp/0374221871/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199685890&amp;sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Viroli, Maurizio. ''Machiavelli'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/read/23271960?title=Machiavelli online edition], good place to start<br /> <br /> ==Political thought==<br /> * Arciniegas, Germán. &quot;Savonarola, Machiavelli, and Guido Antonio Vespucci: Totalitarian and Democrat 500 Years Ago,&quot; ''Political Science Quarterly,'' (1954) 69:184-201, argues that modern totalitarianism is a blending of Machiavelli's theories and Savonarola's techniques of rabble rousing. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2145082 in JSTOR]<br /> * Ball, Terence. &quot;The Picaresque Prince: Reflections on Machiavelli and Moral Change,&quot; ''Political Theory,'' Vol. 12, No. 4 (Nov., 1984), pp. 521-536 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/191497 in jstor]<br /> * Baron, Hans. ''The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny'' (2 vol 1955), highly influential, deep study of civic humanism (republicanism); 700 pp. [http://books.google.com/books?id=PC0oFzJpFBwC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=intitle:crisis+intitle:early+inauthor:hans+inauthor:baron&amp;lr=&amp;num=30&amp;as_brr=0&amp;sig=tw7r_LsDJ0cDz66H4WSylNz3TA0 excerpts and text search]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.01379 ACLS E-books]; also [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.01379 vol 2 in ACLS E-books]<br /> * Baron, Hans. ''In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism'' (2 vols. 1988). <br /> * Baron Hans, &quot;Machiavelli: The Republican Citizen and the Author of The Prince&quot; in ''The English Historical Review'' 76 (1961), pp. 217-53. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/557541 in JSTOR]<br /> * Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; and Viroli, Maurizio, ed. ''Machiavelli and Republicanism.'' (1990). 316 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Machiavelli-Republicanism-Ideas-Context-Gisela/dp/0521435897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199685240&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Butterfield, Herbert. ''The Statecraft of Machiavelli'' (1940). <br /> * Chabod, Federico''Machiavelli &amp; the Renaissance'' (1958) [http://www.questia.com/read/56380461?title=Machiavelli%20%26%20the%20Renaissance online edition]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.01383 online from ACLS E-Books]<br /> * Colish, Marcia L. &quot;Republicanism, Religion, and Machiavelli's Savonarolan Moment,&quot; ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 597-616 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3654110 in JSTOR]<br /> * Colish, Marcia L. &quot;Machiavelli's Art of War: A Reconsideration,&quot; ''Renaissance Quarterly'', Vol. 51, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 1151-1168 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2901963 in JSTOR]<br /> * Fischer, Markus. &quot;Machiavelli's Political Psychology,&quot; ''The Review of Politics,'' Vol. 59, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 789-829 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1408308 in JSTOR]<br /> * Gilbert, Felix. ''Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Italy'' (2nd ed. 1984) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.01706 online from ACLS-E-books]<br /> * Gilbert, Felix. &quot;Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War,&quot; in Edward Mead Earle, ed. ''The Makers of Modern Strategy'' (1944)<br /> * Jensen, De Lamar, ed. ''Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?'' (1960) essays by scholars [http://www.questia.com/read/34624137?title=Machiavelli%3a%20Cynic%2c%20Patriot%2c%20or%20Political%20Scientist%3f online edition]<br /> * Lukes, Timothy J. &quot;Lionizing Machiavelli,&quot; ''The American Political Science Review,'' Vol. 95, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 561-575 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118233 in JSTOR]<br /> * Lukes, Timothy J. &quot;Martialing Machiavelli: Reassessing the Military Reflections,&quot; ''The Journal of Politics,'' Vol. 66, No. 4 (Nov., 2004), pp. 1089-1108 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449530 in JSTOR]<br /> * Femia, Joseph V. ''Machiavelli Revisited'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/read/111592064?title=Machiavelli%20Revisited online edition], 140pp, good place to start<br /> * McCormick, John P. &quot;Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge School's 'Guicciardinian Moments,'&quot; ''Political Theory'', Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 615-643 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3595689 in JSTOR]<br /> * Mansfield, Harvey C. ''Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the Discourses on Livy'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Machiavellis-New-Modes-Orders-Discourses/dp/0226503704/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199685890&amp;sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Mansfield, Harvey C. '' Machiavelli's Virtue'' (1996), 371pp <br /> * Mansfield, Harvey C. &quot;Machiavelli's Political Science,&quot; ''The American Political Science Review,'' Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 293-305 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961365 in JSTOR]<br /> * Mindle, Grant B. &quot;Machiavelli's Realism,&quot; ''The Review of Politics,'' Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp. 212-230 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406671 in JSTOR]<br /> * Najemy, John M. &quot;Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism.&quot; ''American Historical Review'' 1996 101(1): 119-129. ISSN 0002-8762 Fulltext [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(199602)101%3A1%3C119%3ABMARR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 in Jstor]. <br /> * Nederman, Cary J. &quot;Amazing Grace: Fortune, God, and Free Will in Machiavelli's Thought,&quot; ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 60: 617-638. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654111 in JSTOR]<br /> * Parel, A. J. &quot;The Question of Machiavelli's Modernity,&quot; ''The Review of Politics,'' Vol. 53, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 320-339 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407757 in JSTOR]<br /> * Pellerin, Daniel. &quot;Machiavelli's Best Fiend.&quot; ''History of Political Thought'' 2006 27(3): 423-453. Issn: 0143-781x on Pope Alexander VI<br /> * Pocock, J.G.A. ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' (1975; new ed. 2003), a highly influential study of ''Discourses'' and its vast influence; [http://www.amazon.com/Machiavellian-Moment-Florentine-Political-Republican/dp/0691114722/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1199685548&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/read/100774068?title=The%20Machiavellian%20Moment%3a%20Florentine%20Political%20Thought%20and%20the%20Atlantic%20Republican%20Tradition online 1975 edition]<br /> * Pocock, J. G. A. &quot;The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: a Study in History and Ideology.: ''Journal of Modern History'' 1981 53(1): 49-72. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801(198103)53%3A1%3C49%3ATMMRAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R Fulltext: in Jstor]. <br /> * Rahe, Paul A. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Machiavellis-Liberal-Republican-Legacy-Paul/dp/0521851874/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1237614837&amp;sr=11-1 excerpt, reviews and text search], shows Machiavelli's ''Discourses'' had a major impact on shaping conservative thought.<br /> * Rahe, Paul. ''Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution,'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/republics-ancient-and-modern-classical-republicanism-and-the-american-revolution-vol-2-by-paul-a-rahe.jsp online edition]<br /> * Scott, John T. and Vickie B. Sullivan, &quot;Patricide and the Plot of the Prince: Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli's Italy.&quot; ''American Political Science Review'' 1994 88(4): 887-900. Issn: 0003-0554 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2082714 in Jstor]<br /> * Skinner, Quentin. ''The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, v. I, The Renaissance,'' (1978)<br /> * Strauss, Leo. ''On Machivelli'' (1957) <br /> * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ''Niccolò Machiavelli'' (2005) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ online edition]<br /> * Struever, Nancy S. ''The Language of History in the Renaissance: Rhetoric and Historical Consciousness in Florentine Humanism'' (1970)<br /> * Wight, Martin. ''Four Seminal Thinkers in International Theory: Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant, and Mazzini'' (2005), ch. 1 [http://www.questia.com/read/110131848?title=Four%20Seminal%20Thinkers%20in%20International%20Theory%3a%20%20Machiavelli%2c%20Grotius%2c%20Kant%2c%20and%20Mazzini online edition]<br /> <br /> ==Editions==<br /> * Bondanella, Peter, and Mark Musa, eds. ''The Portable Machiavelli'' (1979)<br /> * Penman, Bruce. ''The Prince and Other Political Writings,'' (1981)<br /> * ''Selected Political Writings'' edited by David Wootton (1994) [http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Political-Writings-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/087220247X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1208215823&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * ''The Prince'' ed. by Peter Bondanella (1998) 101pp [http://www.questia.com/read/97573377?title=The%20Prince online edition]<br /> * ''The Prince'' ed. by Rufus Goodwin and Benjamin Martinez (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0937832383/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1208215685&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * ''The Prince'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Special-Student-Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/dp/0979415403/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1208215685&amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]<br /> * Machiavelli, Niccolò. ''The Prince,'' (1908 edition tr by W. K. Marriott) [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232 Gutenberg edition]<br /> * ''The Discourses,'' [http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm online 1772 edition]<br /> * ''The Discourses,'' tr. with introduction and notes by L. J. Walker (2 vol 1950). <br /> * ''The Discourses,'' edited with an introduction by Bernard Crick (1970).<br /> * ''The Seven Books on the Art of War'' [http://www.constitution.org/mac/artofwar_.htm online 1772 edition]<br /> * ''The Art of War'' ed. by Christopher Lynch (2003) <br /> * ''The Art of War'' [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;id=xR0JAAAAQAAJ&amp;dq=machiavelli+%22art+of+war%22+translated&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=web&amp;ots=r35k3yuhWo&amp;sig=XFzaVIpq9qej4DD9AAnFFcasm5Y#PPA13,M1 online 1775 edition]<br /> * ''History of Florence'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2464/2464-h/2464-h.htm online 1901 edition]<br /> * ''Reform of Florence'' [http://www.constitution.org/mac/florence.htm online 1772 edition]<br /> * Gilbert, Allan H. ed. ''Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others,'' (3 vol. 1965), the standard scholarly edition<br /> * ''The Private Correspondence of Nicolo Machiavelli,'' ed. by Orestes Ferrara; (1929) [http://www.questia.com/read/77267435?title=The%20Private%20Correspondence%20of%20Nicolo%20Machiavelli online edition]<br /> * [http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&amp;staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3801&amp;Itemid=28 full text books from the :iberty Fund, a conservative think tank]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Humanism]]<br /> * [[Republicanism]]<br /> * [[Machiavellianism]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Authors|Machiavelli, Niccolo]]<br /> [[Category:Renaissance]]<br /> [[Category:Historians]]<br /> [[Category:Political Theory]]<br /> [[Category:Republicanism]]<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Machiavelli, Niccolò}}</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=660492 2009-05-05T20:36:32Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Obama/Muslim Support */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|TK}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Trip to Canada ==<br /> <br /> Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.<br /> <br /> Most telling, he declared &quot;I love this country [Canada]&quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?<br /> <br /> : *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Demanding Major Change ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&quot; it has to convey both sides.<br /> <br /> As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.<br /> <br /> : It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &quot;c&quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :: 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> : I don't think you can &quot;demand&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.<br /> : 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.<br /> : It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:<br /> : '''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)<br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;evidence&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)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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 &quot;negotiations&quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Atheism ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&lt;/ref&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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama Arab-American ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;first openly black president&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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> :*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small comments ==<br /> <br /> Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &quot;family&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &quot;Family&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> == Lincoln's Bible? ==<br /> <br /> Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&lt;/ref&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 &quot;likely muslim&quot; section?<br /> <br /> [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;trickery&quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &quot;likely Christian&quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> : 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 &quot;Manchurian Muslims&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)<br /> :::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> 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] <br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the idea of &quot;spreading the wealth,&quot;[10] <br /> 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]<br /> {{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009<br /> <br /> The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ==Picture==<br /> [[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == I know we lost a week... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Low Res Pic ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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...&quot;Him.&quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &quot;He&quot; has corrected this&amp;mdash;er&amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::(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)<br /> <br /> == Second swearing in ceremony? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &quot;private.&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!<br /> <br /> == Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==<br /> <br /> This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:<br /> <br /> ''Rejects ID''<br /> From the responses to a Q&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?<br /> <br /> 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. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''<br /> Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &quot;faith&quot; would hurt him a national election. &quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I see two flaws in this discussion topic. The first is that Christianity is not mentioned in any quotations provided and only serves to convolute Conservapedia with Christianity. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia created to serve conservatives as a political and social group, not Christians as a religious group. Second is that the article is irrelevant because it does not differ from the status quo. Perhaps the his stance on evolution could be added to the sections regarding Obama's stance on religion or his stance on eduction but this does not deserve its own section.<br /> <br /> == Allegedly born in Honolulu ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Why no family section? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> [[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &quot;anti-family,&quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &quot;anti-family,&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)<br /> <br /> == Some Changes ==<br /> <br /> Why is this locked?<br /> Obama has not been succeded by &quot;incumbent&quot; nor will he be.<br /> 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)<br /> :&quot;Incumbent&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)<br /> It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &lt;s&gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&lt;/s&gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is he or isn't he President?==<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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 &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> :::: 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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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 - &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&quot;. Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The article should begin with &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&quot; Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&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)<br /> <br /> == Real Bible NOT Koran ==<br /> <br /> Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:<br /> <br /> “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.”<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;honor&quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &quot;swearing in on the Koran&quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Incumbent ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;Sarah Palin&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’ “ <br /> ::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Stylistic matter ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;typical&quot; for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &quot;typical&quot; for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from &quot;present&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;assumed office,&quot; &quot;incumbent&quot; and &quot;January 20, 2009.&quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &quot;present&quot; or &quot;incumbent.&quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article Naming ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Joe&quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009<br /> ::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. <br /> ::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. &quot;Sidney&quot; and &quot;Robinette&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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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. &quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&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)<br /> <br /> == Change of wording? ==<br /> <br /> I think &quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&quot; would be better written as &quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)<br /> ::No, lets. The current &quot;will likely&quot; is a) ambiguous and b) points to him being a Muslim president in the future when the article claims he is one now. I support the proposed change.<br /> <br /> == Update picture? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's religious outlook ==<br /> '''Obama's &quot;outlook is Muslim&quot;? That is simply not true'''<br /> <br /> The Obama article presently reads: &quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&quot;pro-choice&quot;) ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: &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.&quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm] <br /> <br /> 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: &quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &quot;overturn&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 &quot;gender&quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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: &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 &quot;morality&quot;.&quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]<br /> <br /> I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Historical Ignorance ==<br /> <br /> The first statement in the Insights section claims that &quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &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.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&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.<br /> <br /> Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.<br /> <br /> ==Rearranged content==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]<br /> <br /> :I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &quot;may be&quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::There you go again! &quot;Actually is&quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &quot;is&quot; -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &quot;is&quot;? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and Sexism ==<br /> <br /> In the &quot;Presidential Campaign&quot; section of this article it states &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught...&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?<br /> <br /> And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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; 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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&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: &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &quot;a woman and outsider&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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;lack of experience&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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.<br /> <br /> &quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &quot;lack of experience&quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Tone&quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}<br /> <br /> *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. &quot;Assume good faith&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Category ==<br /> <br /> Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Minor Edits==<br /> There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &quot;Birth certificate controversy&quot; section, the word &quot;intelligible&quot; should be &quot;ineligible&quot;. Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Flag Pin &quot;insights&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &quot;adequate&quot; explanation. &quot;Adequate&quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &quot;presumably.&quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &quot;likely.&quot; Again, just an opinion. &quot;Recently&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:<br /> <br /> ''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Michelle ==<br /> <br /> Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Religion... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&lt;ref&gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=11&amp;gl=us&lt;/ref&gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: &quot;Pauline Christians&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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==== Affirmative Action Question ====<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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<br /> <br /> ::&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ::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.<br /> ::&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&quot; and &quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &lt;1% Correction ==<br /> <br /> The &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.&quot;'<br /> <br /> This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &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 &lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.<br /> <br /> We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''<br /> to<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''<br /> <br /> The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's name in Arabic? ==<br /> <br /> Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &quot;باراك حسين أوباما&quot;<br /> <br /> Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be<br /> <br /> &quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Hussein&quot; and &quot;Barack&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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'''<br /> بارك حسین اوباما''' <br /> <br /> I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> [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.<br /> <br /> :''He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:<br /> <br /> :''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.”''<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> :''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''<br /> <br /> NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;compatible&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == More religion ==<br /> <br /> The intro states that Obama &quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &quot;real.&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;real,&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 &quot;chose not use&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 &quot;chose not to&quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Dantes&quot;, your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama &quot;chose not to use&quot; a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &quot;real, valid and legally binding,&quot; then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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: &quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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:<br /> :::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.<br /> :::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &quot;chose not to use&quot; a bible.<br /> :::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &quot;chose not to.&quot; There's no extant source to back this up<br /> :::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction<br /> :::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;there's no disputing&quot; something isn't the same as proving it.<br /> <br /> ::::: As to the &quot;real&quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &quot;superabundance of caution,&quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &quot;seeker of truth&quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==<br /> Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &lt;br&gt;''&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.&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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==<br /> I would like to add this text right before the &quot;Campaign financing&quot; secion:<br /> :During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &quot;working families.&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?” &lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&lt;/ref&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama &amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==<br /> 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 &quot;hero&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Abandoned ==<br /> <br /> This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Page should be unlocked==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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: ''&quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> :::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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Age template==<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Referring to America in 3rd person? ==<br /> &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.&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)<br /> <br /> == Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==<br /> <br /> On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &quot;Insights&quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &quot;presumably&quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &quot;likely&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)<br /> <br /> == Needed updates for Turkey speech, &quot;no longer Christian&quot;, etc. ==<br /> <br /> I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:<br /> <br /> *update on Obama's &quot;no longer a Christian nation&quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=67735]<br /> *confirming that the &quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&quot; prediction came true (Turkey)<br /> *any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &quot;Islam is not the enemy&quot; type of content. <br /> <br /> Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...<br /> [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &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'''.&quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &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'''&quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> <br /> :::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: 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.<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period. <br /> In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[16]<br /> <br /> I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.<br /> <br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[21]<br /> <br /> If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said &quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&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.<br /> <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[22]<br /> <br /> Ok, it probably is &quot;compatible with the modern world&quot;. Why is this evidence he is Muslim.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::And your claim that &quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> == Dog ==<br /> <br /> Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==<br /> <br /> I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> == Kenya is not a muslim country. ==<br /> <br /> According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.<br /> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html<br /> So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=660482 2009-05-05T20:24:25Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Change of wording? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|TK}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Trip to Canada ==<br /> <br /> Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.<br /> <br /> Most telling, he declared &quot;I love this country [Canada]&quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?<br /> <br /> : *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Demanding Major Change ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&quot; it has to convey both sides.<br /> <br /> As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.<br /> <br /> : It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &quot;c&quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :: 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> : I don't think you can &quot;demand&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.<br /> : 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.<br /> : It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:<br /> : '''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)<br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;evidence&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)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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 &quot;negotiations&quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Atheism ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&lt;/ref&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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama Arab-American ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;first openly black president&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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> :*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small comments ==<br /> <br /> Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &quot;family&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &quot;Family&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> == Lincoln's Bible? ==<br /> <br /> Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&lt;/ref&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 &quot;likely muslim&quot; section?<br /> <br /> [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;trickery&quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &quot;likely Christian&quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> : 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 &quot;Manchurian Muslims&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)<br /> :::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> 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] <br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the idea of &quot;spreading the wealth,&quot;[10] <br /> 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]<br /> {{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009<br /> <br /> The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ==Picture==<br /> [[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Obama/Muslim Support ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> :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]<br /> <br /> <br /> That is not evidence for Obama being a Muslim and is a fallacy. I'd like to comment on some of the &quot;premise&quot; for Obama being a Muslim and illustrate some of their inadequacies and logical discrepancies. I would also like to point out, before I begin, that there is no discussion in this section regarding the controversy of these claims or their poor citation including tertiary sources like blogs.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[21] =&gt; This is a fallacious argument as it is only taking one side of an ambiguous statement while disregarding his frequent statements to the contrary.<br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[22][23] =&gt; This also proves nothing as a) none of the listed &quot;Muslim&quot; attributes of the president are expanded on and to state that 'few Muslims convert, and therefore he didn't' is a fallacy. Furthermore, it was not established that he was a Muslim, only that he was exposed to a Muslim community.<br /> * Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad,[24] which most Christians would not retain.[25] =&gt; This statement is pointless guesswork. My friend is Christian yet retains the last name Arulvarathon, does that implicate him as a Hindu? No. This is one of the more absurd &quot;premises.&quot;<br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[26] =&gt; This does not give proper context to the quotation. I understand a conservative bias to this website but this is borderline propaganda. <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[27] =&gt; I agree with that. To claim this as an argument for the president being a Muslim is a fallacy and does not recognize that other leaders, including the British Prime Minister, have stated the same thing.<br /> * Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&quot; and recited &quot;with a first-class Arabic accent&quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&quot;[28] =&gt; This is also a fallacy. Being well versed in something you do not believe is exactly what many atheists attempt to be with regards to scripture.<br /> * Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.[29] =&gt; Malcolm X is widely viewed as a freedom fighter and thus this statement relies upon being ambiguous. Even accepting its ambiguity it is dispelled by Obama's comments that he is a Christian.<br /> * 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.[30] =&gt; Once again, a fallacy.<br /> * Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.[31] =&gt; Proving nothing. It's nothing new for a politician to have sketchy ties to religion or appearing to be religious to win over votes, but it's a far greater leap to then claim the politician is of a specific faith.<br /> * On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &quot;The Post-American World&quot; by Fareed Zakaria,[32] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[33] =&gt; During high school we read translated logs of Nazi communications to understand the &quot;Nazi Mindset&quot; and outlook. I state this to help show how fallacious this premise is.<br /> * Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. =&gt; By this logic any person can be a Muslim. Furthermore, this does not prove that even if the president lying about his religious views it doesn't show how his lying advances the cause of Islam.<br /> * Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &quot;Pakistan&quot; rather than the common American one.[34] =&gt; As do I. Using the traditional pronunciation for something in order to be as linguistically faithful as possible is not an indication of any attachment to a culture.<br /> * 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 &quot;churched&quot; in a 2007 speech: &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.'&quot;[35] =&gt; This premise effectively states &quot;he only took interest in becoming Christian when he realized it would be better if he went.&quot; Therefore he's Muslim? That's absurd.<br /> * Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. [36] =&gt; I've worked with Muslims before too and I am not Muslim. These statements are getting progressively weaker.<br /> * Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name &quot;Renegade&quot;. &quot;Renegade&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 &quot;Christian turned Muslim.&quot;[37] =&gt; This definition changed in the 1660's. Furthermore, why would Obama put little bits of evidence like this? The author of this section seems to view the world as a game.<br /> * Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[38] &quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&quot;[39] =&gt; Perhaps it was because he appeared to be the least anti-Muslim of either candidate. Or perhaps because there are more Muslims in the United States than ever before.<br /> * &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.&quot;[40][41] =&gt; This proves nothing. This is one of the weakest premises yet.<br /> * Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.[42][43] =&gt; Muslim in Origin but then again my first name is Buddhist. This is as poor as I've seen this website. I honestly hope quality improves in future.<br /> * 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. =&gt; Once again, this is not logical proof for Obama being a Muslim.<br /> <br /> President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009 =&gt; equally possible that this was merely a sign of respect. Furthermore, why would a devout Muslim bow? <br /> <br /> * 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.[44] 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, &quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&quot;[45] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&quot;[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.[49] 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.) =&gt; Besides the obvious bias in &quot;inexorable&quot; this doesn't show anything. It is not proper form for Yeomen to bow to the Queen of England but it is for King Abdullah. This is poor evidence.<br /> * Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram &quot;IHS&quot;, which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there[50] =&gt; This, also, is a poor premise that makes for an illogical conclusion.<br /> <br /> Obama tries to downplay his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a &quot;confirmed atheist&quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.[51] 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.[52] =&gt; This is absurd. I don't feel the need to explain this.<br /> <br /> == I know we lost a week... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Low Res Pic ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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...&quot;Him.&quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &quot;He&quot; has corrected this&amp;mdash;er&amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::(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)<br /> <br /> == Second swearing in ceremony? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &quot;private.&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!<br /> <br /> == Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==<br /> <br /> This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:<br /> <br /> ''Rejects ID''<br /> From the responses to a Q&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?<br /> <br /> 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. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''<br /> Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &quot;faith&quot; would hurt him a national election. &quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I see two flaws in this discussion topic. The first is that Christianity is not mentioned in any quotations provided and only serves to convolute Conservapedia with Christianity. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia created to serve conservatives as a political and social group, not Christians as a religious group. Second is that the article is irrelevant because it does not differ from the status quo. Perhaps the his stance on evolution could be added to the sections regarding Obama's stance on religion or his stance on eduction but this does not deserve its own section.<br /> <br /> == Allegedly born in Honolulu ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Why no family section? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> [[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &quot;anti-family,&quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &quot;anti-family,&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)<br /> <br /> == Some Changes ==<br /> <br /> Why is this locked?<br /> Obama has not been succeded by &quot;incumbent&quot; nor will he be.<br /> 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)<br /> :&quot;Incumbent&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)<br /> It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &lt;s&gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&lt;/s&gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is he or isn't he President?==<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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 &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> :::: 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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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 - &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&quot;. Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The article should begin with &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&quot; Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&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)<br /> <br /> == Real Bible NOT Koran ==<br /> <br /> Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:<br /> <br /> “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.”<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;honor&quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &quot;swearing in on the Koran&quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Incumbent ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;Sarah Palin&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’ “ <br /> ::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Stylistic matter ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;typical&quot; for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &quot;typical&quot; for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from &quot;present&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;assumed office,&quot; &quot;incumbent&quot; and &quot;January 20, 2009.&quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &quot;present&quot; or &quot;incumbent.&quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article Naming ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Joe&quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009<br /> ::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. <br /> ::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. &quot;Sidney&quot; and &quot;Robinette&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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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. &quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&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)<br /> <br /> == Change of wording? ==<br /> <br /> I think &quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&quot; would be better written as &quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)<br /> ::No, lets. The current &quot;will likely&quot; is a) ambiguous and b) points to him being a Muslim president in the future when the article claims he is one now. I support the proposed change.<br /> <br /> == Update picture? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's religious outlook ==<br /> '''Obama's &quot;outlook is Muslim&quot;? That is simply not true'''<br /> <br /> The Obama article presently reads: &quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&quot;pro-choice&quot;) ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: &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.&quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm] <br /> <br /> 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: &quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &quot;overturn&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 &quot;gender&quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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: &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 &quot;morality&quot;.&quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]<br /> <br /> I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Historical Ignorance ==<br /> <br /> The first statement in the Insights section claims that &quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &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.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&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.<br /> <br /> Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.<br /> <br /> ==Rearranged content==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]<br /> <br /> :I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &quot;may be&quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::There you go again! &quot;Actually is&quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &quot;is&quot; -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &quot;is&quot;? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and Sexism ==<br /> <br /> In the &quot;Presidential Campaign&quot; section of this article it states &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught...&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?<br /> <br /> And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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; 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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&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: &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &quot;a woman and outsider&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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;lack of experience&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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.<br /> <br /> &quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &quot;lack of experience&quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Tone&quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}<br /> <br /> *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. &quot;Assume good faith&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Category ==<br /> <br /> Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Minor Edits==<br /> There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &quot;Birth certificate controversy&quot; section, the word &quot;intelligible&quot; should be &quot;ineligible&quot;. Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Flag Pin &quot;insights&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &quot;adequate&quot; explanation. &quot;Adequate&quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &quot;presumably.&quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &quot;likely.&quot; Again, just an opinion. &quot;Recently&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:<br /> <br /> ''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Michelle ==<br /> <br /> Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Religion... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&lt;ref&gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=11&amp;gl=us&lt;/ref&gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: &quot;Pauline Christians&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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==== Affirmative Action Question ====<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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<br /> <br /> ::&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ::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.<br /> ::&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&quot; and &quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &lt;1% Correction ==<br /> <br /> The &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.&quot;'<br /> <br /> This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &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 &lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.<br /> <br /> We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''<br /> to<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''<br /> <br /> The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's name in Arabic? ==<br /> <br /> Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &quot;باراك حسين أوباما&quot;<br /> <br /> Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be<br /> <br /> &quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Hussein&quot; and &quot;Barack&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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'''<br /> بارك حسین اوباما''' <br /> <br /> I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> [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.<br /> <br /> :''He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:<br /> <br /> :''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.”''<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> :''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''<br /> <br /> NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;compatible&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == More religion ==<br /> <br /> The intro states that Obama &quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &quot;real.&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;real,&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 &quot;chose not use&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 &quot;chose not to&quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Dantes&quot;, your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama &quot;chose not to use&quot; a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &quot;real, valid and legally binding,&quot; then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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: &quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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:<br /> :::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.<br /> :::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &quot;chose not to use&quot; a bible.<br /> :::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &quot;chose not to.&quot; There's no extant source to back this up<br /> :::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction<br /> :::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;there's no disputing&quot; something isn't the same as proving it.<br /> <br /> ::::: As to the &quot;real&quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &quot;superabundance of caution,&quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &quot;seeker of truth&quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==<br /> Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &lt;br&gt;''&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.&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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==<br /> I would like to add this text right before the &quot;Campaign financing&quot; secion:<br /> :During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &quot;working families.&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?” &lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&lt;/ref&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama &amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==<br /> 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 &quot;hero&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Abandoned ==<br /> <br /> This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Page should be unlocked==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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: ''&quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> :::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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Age template==<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Referring to America in 3rd person? ==<br /> &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.&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)<br /> <br /> == Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==<br /> <br /> On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &quot;Insights&quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &quot;presumably&quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &quot;likely&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)<br /> <br /> == Needed updates for Turkey speech, &quot;no longer Christian&quot;, etc. ==<br /> <br /> I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:<br /> <br /> *update on Obama's &quot;no longer a Christian nation&quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=67735]<br /> *confirming that the &quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&quot; prediction came true (Turkey)<br /> *any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &quot;Islam is not the enemy&quot; type of content. <br /> <br /> Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...<br /> [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &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'''.&quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &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'''&quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> <br /> :::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: 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.<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period. <br /> In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[16]<br /> <br /> I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.<br /> <br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[21]<br /> <br /> If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said &quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&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.<br /> <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[22]<br /> <br /> Ok, it probably is &quot;compatible with the modern world&quot;. Why is this evidence he is Muslim.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::And your claim that &quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> == Dog ==<br /> <br /> Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==<br /> <br /> I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> == Kenya is not a muslim country. ==<br /> <br /> According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.<br /> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html<br /> So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=660480 2009-05-05T20:20:22Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|TK}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Trip to Canada ==<br /> <br /> Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.<br /> <br /> Most telling, he declared &quot;I love this country [Canada]&quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?<br /> <br /> : *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Demanding Major Change ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&quot; it has to convey both sides.<br /> <br /> As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.<br /> <br /> : It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &quot;c&quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :: 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> : I don't think you can &quot;demand&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.<br /> : 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.<br /> : It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:<br /> : '''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)<br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;evidence&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)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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 &quot;negotiations&quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Atheism ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&lt;/ref&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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama Arab-American ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;first openly black president&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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> :*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small comments ==<br /> <br /> Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &quot;family&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &quot;Family&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> == Lincoln's Bible? ==<br /> <br /> Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&lt;/ref&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 &quot;likely muslim&quot; section?<br /> <br /> [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;trickery&quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &quot;likely Christian&quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> : 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 &quot;Manchurian Muslims&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)<br /> :::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> 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] <br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the idea of &quot;spreading the wealth,&quot;[10] <br /> 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]<br /> {{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009<br /> <br /> The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ==Picture==<br /> [[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Obama/Muslim Support ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> :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]<br /> <br /> <br /> That is not evidence for Obama being a Muslim and is a fallacy. I'd like to comment on some of the &quot;premise&quot; for Obama being a Muslim and illustrate some of their inadequacies and logical discrepancies. I would also like to point out, before I begin, that there is no discussion in this section regarding the controversy of these claims or their poor citation including tertiary sources like blogs.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[21] =&gt; This is a fallacious argument as it is only taking one side of an ambiguous statement while disregarding his frequent statements to the contrary.<br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[22][23] =&gt; This also proves nothing as a) none of the listed &quot;Muslim&quot; attributes of the president are expanded on and to state that 'few Muslims convert, and therefore he didn't' is a fallacy. Furthermore, it was not established that he was a Muslim, only that he was exposed to a Muslim community.<br /> * Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad,[24] which most Christians would not retain.[25] =&gt; This statement is pointless guesswork. My friend is Christian yet retains the last name Arulvarathon, does that implicate him as a Hindu? No. This is one of the more absurd &quot;premises.&quot;<br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[26] =&gt; This does not give proper context to the quotation. I understand a conservative bias to this website but this is borderline propaganda. <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[27] =&gt; I agree with that. To claim this as an argument for the president being a Muslim is a fallacy and does not recognize that other leaders, including the British Prime Minister, have stated the same thing.<br /> * Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&quot; and recited &quot;with a first-class Arabic accent&quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&quot;[28] =&gt; This is also a fallacy. Being well versed in something you do not believe is exactly what many atheists attempt to be with regards to scripture.<br /> * Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.[29] =&gt; Malcolm X is widely viewed as a freedom fighter and thus this statement relies upon being ambiguous. Even accepting its ambiguity it is dispelled by Obama's comments that he is a Christian.<br /> * 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.[30] =&gt; Once again, a fallacy.<br /> * Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.[31] =&gt; Proving nothing. It's nothing new for a politician to have sketchy ties to religion or appearing to be religious to win over votes, but it's a far greater leap to then claim the politician is of a specific faith.<br /> * On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &quot;The Post-American World&quot; by Fareed Zakaria,[32] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[33] =&gt; During high school we read translated logs of Nazi communications to understand the &quot;Nazi Mindset&quot; and outlook. I state this to help show how fallacious this premise is.<br /> * Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. =&gt; By this logic any person can be a Muslim. Furthermore, this does not prove that even if the president lying about his religious views it doesn't show how his lying advances the cause of Islam.<br /> * Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &quot;Pakistan&quot; rather than the common American one.[34] =&gt; As do I. Using the traditional pronunciation for something in order to be as linguistically faithful as possible is not an indication of any attachment to a culture.<br /> * 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 &quot;churched&quot; in a 2007 speech: &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.'&quot;[35] =&gt; This premise effectively states &quot;he only took interest in becoming Christian when he realized it would be better if he went.&quot; Therefore he's Muslim? That's absurd.<br /> * Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. [36] =&gt; I've worked with Muslims before too and I am not Muslim. These statements are getting progressively weaker.<br /> * Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name &quot;Renegade&quot;. &quot;Renegade&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 &quot;Christian turned Muslim.&quot;[37] =&gt; This definition changed in the 1660's. Furthermore, why would Obama put little bits of evidence like this? The author of this section seems to view the world as a game.<br /> * Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[38] &quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&quot;[39] =&gt; Perhaps it was because he appeared to be the least anti-Muslim of either candidate. Or perhaps because there are more Muslims in the United States than ever before.<br /> * &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.&quot;[40][41] =&gt; This proves nothing. This is one of the weakest premises yet.<br /> * Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.[42][43] =&gt; Muslim in Origin but then again my first name is Buddhist. This is as poor as I've seen this website. I honestly hope quality improves in future.<br /> * 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. =&gt; Once again, this is not logical proof for Obama being a Muslim.<br /> <br /> President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009 =&gt; equally possible that this was merely a sign of respect. Furthermore, why would a devout Muslim bow? <br /> <br /> * 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.[44] 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, &quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&quot;[45] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&quot;[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.[49] 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.) =&gt; Besides the obvious bias in &quot;inexorable&quot; this doesn't show anything. It is not proper form for Yeomen to bow to the Queen of England but it is for King Abdullah. This is poor evidence.<br /> * Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram &quot;IHS&quot;, which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there[50] =&gt; This, also, is a poor premise that makes for an illogical conclusion.<br /> <br /> Obama tries to downplay his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a &quot;confirmed atheist&quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.[51] 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.[52] =&gt; This is absurd. I don't feel the need to explain this.<br /> <br /> == I know we lost a week... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Low Res Pic ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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...&quot;Him.&quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &quot;He&quot; has corrected this&amp;mdash;er&amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::(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)<br /> <br /> == Second swearing in ceremony? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &quot;private.&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!<br /> <br /> == Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==<br /> <br /> This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:<br /> <br /> ''Rejects ID''<br /> From the responses to a Q&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?<br /> <br /> 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. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''<br /> Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &quot;faith&quot; would hurt him a national election. &quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I see two flaws in this discussion topic. The first is that Christianity is not mentioned in any quotations provided and only serves to convolute Conservapedia with Christianity. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia created to serve conservatives as a political and social group, not Christians as a religious group. Second is that the article is irrelevant because it does not differ from the status quo. Perhaps the his stance on evolution could be added to the sections regarding Obama's stance on religion or his stance on eduction but this does not deserve its own section.<br /> <br /> == Allegedly born in Honolulu ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Why no family section? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> [[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &quot;anti-family,&quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &quot;anti-family,&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)<br /> <br /> == Some Changes ==<br /> <br /> Why is this locked?<br /> Obama has not been succeded by &quot;incumbent&quot; nor will he be.<br /> 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)<br /> :&quot;Incumbent&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)<br /> It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &lt;s&gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&lt;/s&gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is he or isn't he President?==<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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 &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> :::: 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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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 - &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&quot;. Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The article should begin with &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&quot; Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&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)<br /> <br /> == Real Bible NOT Koran ==<br /> <br /> Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:<br /> <br /> “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.”<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;honor&quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &quot;swearing in on the Koran&quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Incumbent ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;Sarah Palin&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’ “ <br /> ::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Stylistic matter ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;typical&quot; for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &quot;typical&quot; for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from &quot;present&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;assumed office,&quot; &quot;incumbent&quot; and &quot;January 20, 2009.&quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &quot;present&quot; or &quot;incumbent.&quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article Naming ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Joe&quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009<br /> ::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. <br /> ::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. &quot;Sidney&quot; and &quot;Robinette&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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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. &quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&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)<br /> <br /> == Change of wording? ==<br /> <br /> I think &quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&quot; would be better written as &quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Update picture? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's religious outlook ==<br /> '''Obama's &quot;outlook is Muslim&quot;? That is simply not true'''<br /> <br /> The Obama article presently reads: &quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&quot;pro-choice&quot;) ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: &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.&quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm] <br /> <br /> 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: &quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &quot;overturn&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 &quot;gender&quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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: &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 &quot;morality&quot;.&quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]<br /> <br /> I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Historical Ignorance ==<br /> <br /> The first statement in the Insights section claims that &quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &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.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&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.<br /> <br /> Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.<br /> <br /> ==Rearranged content==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]<br /> <br /> :I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &quot;may be&quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::There you go again! &quot;Actually is&quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &quot;is&quot; -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &quot;is&quot;? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and Sexism ==<br /> <br /> In the &quot;Presidential Campaign&quot; section of this article it states &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught...&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?<br /> <br /> And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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; 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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&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: &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &quot;a woman and outsider&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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;lack of experience&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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.<br /> <br /> &quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &quot;lack of experience&quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Tone&quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}<br /> <br /> *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. &quot;Assume good faith&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Category ==<br /> <br /> Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Minor Edits==<br /> There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &quot;Birth certificate controversy&quot; section, the word &quot;intelligible&quot; should be &quot;ineligible&quot;. Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Flag Pin &quot;insights&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &quot;adequate&quot; explanation. &quot;Adequate&quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &quot;presumably.&quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &quot;likely.&quot; Again, just an opinion. &quot;Recently&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:<br /> <br /> ''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Michelle ==<br /> <br /> Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Religion... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&lt;ref&gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=11&amp;gl=us&lt;/ref&gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: &quot;Pauline Christians&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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==== Affirmative Action Question ====<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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<br /> <br /> ::&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ::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.<br /> ::&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&quot; and &quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &lt;1% Correction ==<br /> <br /> The &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.&quot;'<br /> <br /> This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &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 &lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.<br /> <br /> We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''<br /> to<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''<br /> <br /> The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's name in Arabic? ==<br /> <br /> Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &quot;باراك حسين أوباما&quot;<br /> <br /> Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be<br /> <br /> &quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Hussein&quot; and &quot;Barack&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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'''<br /> بارك حسین اوباما''' <br /> <br /> I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> [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.<br /> <br /> :''He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:<br /> <br /> :''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.”''<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> :''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''<br /> <br /> NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;compatible&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == More religion ==<br /> <br /> The intro states that Obama &quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &quot;real.&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;real,&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 &quot;chose not use&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 &quot;chose not to&quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Dantes&quot;, your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama &quot;chose not to use&quot; a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &quot;real, valid and legally binding,&quot; then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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: &quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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:<br /> :::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.<br /> :::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &quot;chose not to use&quot; a bible.<br /> :::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &quot;chose not to.&quot; There's no extant source to back this up<br /> :::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction<br /> :::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;there's no disputing&quot; something isn't the same as proving it.<br /> <br /> ::::: As to the &quot;real&quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &quot;superabundance of caution,&quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &quot;seeker of truth&quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==<br /> Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &lt;br&gt;''&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.&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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==<br /> I would like to add this text right before the &quot;Campaign financing&quot; secion:<br /> :During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &quot;working families.&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?” &lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&lt;/ref&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama &amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==<br /> 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 &quot;hero&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Abandoned ==<br /> <br /> This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Page should be unlocked==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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: ''&quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> :::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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Age template==<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Referring to America in 3rd person? ==<br /> &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.&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)<br /> <br /> == Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==<br /> <br /> On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &quot;Insights&quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &quot;presumably&quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &quot;likely&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)<br /> <br /> == Needed updates for Turkey speech, &quot;no longer Christian&quot;, etc. ==<br /> <br /> I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:<br /> <br /> *update on Obama's &quot;no longer a Christian nation&quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=67735]<br /> *confirming that the &quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&quot; prediction came true (Turkey)<br /> *any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &quot;Islam is not the enemy&quot; type of content. <br /> <br /> Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...<br /> [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &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'''.&quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &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'''&quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> <br /> :::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: 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.<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period. <br /> In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[16]<br /> <br /> I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.<br /> <br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[21]<br /> <br /> If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said &quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&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.<br /> <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[22]<br /> <br /> Ok, it probably is &quot;compatible with the modern world&quot;. Why is this evidence he is Muslim.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::And your claim that &quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> == Dog ==<br /> <br /> Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==<br /> <br /> I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> == Kenya is not a muslim country. ==<br /> <br /> According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.<br /> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html<br /> So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=660479 2009-05-05T20:18:18Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|TK}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Trip to Canada ==<br /> <br /> Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.<br /> <br /> Most telling, he declared &quot;I love this country [Canada]&quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?<br /> <br /> : *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Demanding Major Change ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&quot; it has to convey both sides.<br /> <br /> As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.<br /> <br /> : It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &quot;c&quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :: 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> : I don't think you can &quot;demand&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.<br /> : 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.<br /> : It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:<br /> : '''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)<br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;evidence&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)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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 &quot;negotiations&quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Atheism ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&lt;/ref&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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama Arab-American ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;first openly black president&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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> :*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small comments ==<br /> <br /> Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &quot;family&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &quot;Family&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> == Lincoln's Bible? ==<br /> <br /> Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&lt;/ref&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 &quot;likely muslim&quot; section?<br /> <br /> [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;trickery&quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &quot;likely Christian&quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> : 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 &quot;Manchurian Muslims&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)<br /> :::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> 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] <br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the idea of &quot;spreading the wealth,&quot;[10] <br /> 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]<br /> {{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009<br /> <br /> The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ==Picture==<br /> [[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Obama/Muslim Support ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> :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]<br /> <br /> <br /> That is not evidence for Obama being a Muslim and is a fallacy. I'd like to comment on some of the &quot;premise&quot; for Obama being a Muslim and illustrate some of their inadequacies and logical discrepancies. I would also like to point out, before I begin, that there is no discussion in this section regarding the controversy of these claims or their poor citation including tertiary sources like blogs.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[21] =&gt; This is a fallacious argument as it is only taking one side of an ambiguous statement while disregarding his frequent statements to the contrary.<br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[22][23] =&gt; This also proves nothing as a) none of the listed &quot;Muslim&quot; attributes of the president are expanded on and to state that 'few Muslims convert, and therefore he didn't' is a fallacy. Furthermore, it was not established that he was a Muslim, only that he was exposed to a Muslim community.<br /> * Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad,[24] which most Christians would not retain.[25] =&gt; This statement is pointless guesswork. My friend is Christian yet retains the last name Arulvarathon, does that implicate him as a Hindu? No. This is one of the more absurd &quot;premises.&quot;<br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[26] =&gt; This does not give proper context to the quotation. I understand a conservative bias to this website but this is borderline propaganda. <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[27] =&gt; I agree with that. To claim this as an argument for the president being a Muslim is a fallacy and does not recognize that other leaders, including the British Prime Minister, have stated the same thing.<br /> * Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&quot; and recited &quot;with a first-class Arabic accent&quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&quot;[28] =&gt; This is also a fallacy. Being well versed in something you do not believe is exactly what many atheists attempt to be with regards to scripture.<br /> * Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.[29] =&gt; Malcolm X is widely viewed as a freedom fighter and thus this statement relies upon being ambiguous. Even accepting its ambiguity it is dispelled by Obama's comments that he is a Christian.<br /> * 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.[30] =&gt; Once again, a fallacy.<br /> * Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.[31] =&gt; Proving nothing. It's nothing new for a politician to have sketchy ties to religion or appearing to be religious to win over votes, but it's a far greater leap to then claim the politician is of a specific faith.<br /> * On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &quot;The Post-American World&quot; by Fareed Zakaria,[32] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[33] =&gt; During high school we read translated logs of Nazi communications to understand the &quot;Nazi Mindset&quot; and outlook. I state this to help show how fallacious this premise is.<br /> * Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. =&gt; By this logic any person can be a Muslim. Furthermore, this does not prove that even if the president lying about his religious views it doesn't show how his lying advances the cause of Islam.<br /> * Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &quot;Pakistan&quot; rather than the common American one.[34] =&gt; As do I. Using the traditional pronunciation for something in order to be as linguistically faithful as possible is not an indication of any attachment to a culture.<br /> * 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 &quot;churched&quot; in a 2007 speech: &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.'&quot;[35] =&gt; This premise effectively states &quot;he only took interest in becoming Christian when he realized it would be better if he went.&quot; Therefore he's Muslim? That's absurd.<br /> * Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. [36] =&gt; I've worked with Muslims before too and I am not Muslim. These statements are getting progressively weaker.<br /> * Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name &quot;Renegade&quot;. &quot;Renegade&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 &quot;Christian turned Muslim.&quot;[37] =&gt; This definition changed in the 1660's. Furthermore, why would Obama put little bits of evidence like this? The author of this section seems to view the world as a game.<br /> * Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[38] &quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&quot;[39] =&gt; Perhaps it was because he appeared to be the least anti-Muslim of either candidate. Or perhaps because there are more Muslims in the United States than ever before.<br /> * &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.&quot;[40][41] =&gt; This proves nothing. This is one of the weakest premises yet.<br /> * Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.[42][43] =&gt; Muslim in Origin but then again my first name is Buddhist. This is as poor as I've seen this website. I honestly hope quality improves in future.<br /> * 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. =&gt; Once again, this is not logical proof for Obama being a Muslim.<br /> <br /> President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009 =&gt; equally possible that this was merely a sign of respect. Furthermore, why would a devout Muslim bow? <br /> <br /> * 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.[44] 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, &quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&quot;[45] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&quot;[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.[49] 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.) =&gt; Besides the obvious bias in &quot;inexorable&quot; this doesn't show anything. It is not proper form for Yeomen to bow to the Queen of England but it is for King Abdullah. This is poor evidence.<br /> * Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram &quot;IHS&quot;, which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there[50] =&gt; This, also, is a poor premise that makes for an illogical conclusion.<br /> <br /> Obama tries to downplay his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a &quot;confirmed atheist&quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.[51] 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.[52] =&gt; This is absurd. I don't feel the need to explain this.<br /> <br /> == I know we lost a week... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Low Res Pic ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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...&quot;Him.&quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &quot;He&quot; has corrected this&amp;mdash;er&amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::(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)<br /> <br /> == Second swearing in ceremony? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &quot;private.&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!<br /> <br /> == Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==<br /> <br /> This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:<br /> <br /> ''Rejects ID''<br /> From the responses to a Q&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?<br /> <br /> 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. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''<br /> Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &quot;faith&quot; would hurt him a national election. &quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::I see two flaws in this discussion topic. The first is that Christianity is not mentioned in any quotations provided and only serves to convolute Conservapedia with Christianity. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia created to serve conservatives as a political and social group, not Christians as a religious group. Second is that the article is irrelevant because it does not differ from the status quo. Perhaps the his stance on evolution could be added to the sections regarding Obama's stance on religion or his stance on eduction but this does not deserve its own section.<br /> <br /> == Allegedly born in Honolulu ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Why no family section? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> [[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &quot;anti-family,&quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &quot;anti-family,&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)<br /> <br /> == Some Changes ==<br /> <br /> Why is this locked?<br /> Obama has not been succeded by &quot;incumbent&quot; nor will he be.<br /> 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)<br /> :&quot;Incumbent&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)<br /> It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &lt;s&gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&lt;/s&gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is he or isn't he President?==<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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 &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> :::: 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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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 - &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&quot;. Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The article should begin with &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&quot; Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&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)<br /> <br /> == Real Bible NOT Koran ==<br /> <br /> Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:<br /> <br /> “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.”<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;honor&quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &quot;swearing in on the Koran&quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Incumbent ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;Sarah Palin&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’ “ <br /> ::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Stylistic matter ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;typical&quot; for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &quot;typical&quot; for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from &quot;present&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;assumed office,&quot; &quot;incumbent&quot; and &quot;January 20, 2009.&quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &quot;present&quot; or &quot;incumbent.&quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article Naming ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Joe&quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009<br /> ::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. <br /> ::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. &quot;Sidney&quot; and &quot;Robinette&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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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. &quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&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)<br /> <br /> == Change of wording? ==<br /> <br /> I think &quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&quot; would be better written as &quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Update picture? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's religious outlook ==<br /> '''Obama's &quot;outlook is Muslim&quot;? That is simply not true'''<br /> <br /> The Obama article presently reads: &quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&quot;pro-choice&quot;) ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: &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.&quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm] <br /> <br /> 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: &quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &quot;overturn&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 &quot;gender&quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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: &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 &quot;morality&quot;.&quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]<br /> <br /> I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Historical Ignorance ==<br /> <br /> The first statement in the Insights section claims that &quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &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.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&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.<br /> <br /> Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.<br /> <br /> ==Rearranged content==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]<br /> <br /> :I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &quot;may be&quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::There you go again! &quot;Actually is&quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &quot;is&quot; -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &quot;is&quot;? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and Sexism ==<br /> <br /> In the &quot;Presidential Campaign&quot; section of this article it states &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught...&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?<br /> <br /> And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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; 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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&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: &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &quot;a woman and outsider&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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;lack of experience&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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.<br /> <br /> &quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &quot;lack of experience&quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Tone&quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}<br /> <br /> *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. &quot;Assume good faith&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Category ==<br /> <br /> Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Minor Edits==<br /> There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &quot;Birth certificate controversy&quot; section, the word &quot;intelligible&quot; should be &quot;ineligible&quot;. Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Flag Pin &quot;insights&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &quot;adequate&quot; explanation. &quot;Adequate&quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &quot;presumably.&quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &quot;likely.&quot; Again, just an opinion. &quot;Recently&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:<br /> <br /> ''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Michelle ==<br /> <br /> Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Religion... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&lt;ref&gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=11&amp;gl=us&lt;/ref&gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: &quot;Pauline Christians&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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==== Affirmative Action Question ====<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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<br /> <br /> ::&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ::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.<br /> ::&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&quot; and &quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &lt;1% Correction ==<br /> <br /> The &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.&quot;'<br /> <br /> This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &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 &lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.<br /> <br /> We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''<br /> to<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''<br /> <br /> The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's name in Arabic? ==<br /> <br /> Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &quot;باراك حسين أوباما&quot;<br /> <br /> Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be<br /> <br /> &quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Hussein&quot; and &quot;Barack&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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'''<br /> بارك حسین اوباما''' <br /> <br /> I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> [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.<br /> <br /> :''He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:<br /> <br /> :''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.”''<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> :''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''<br /> <br /> NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;compatible&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == More religion ==<br /> <br /> The intro states that Obama &quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &quot;real.&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;real,&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 &quot;chose not use&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 &quot;chose not to&quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Dantes&quot;, your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama &quot;chose not to use&quot; a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &quot;real, valid and legally binding,&quot; then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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: &quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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:<br /> :::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.<br /> :::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &quot;chose not to use&quot; a bible.<br /> :::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &quot;chose not to.&quot; There's no extant source to back this up<br /> :::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction<br /> :::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;there's no disputing&quot; something isn't the same as proving it.<br /> <br /> ::::: As to the &quot;real&quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &quot;superabundance of caution,&quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &quot;seeker of truth&quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==<br /> Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &lt;br&gt;''&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.&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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==<br /> I would like to add this text right before the &quot;Campaign financing&quot; secion:<br /> :During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &quot;working families.&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?” &lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&lt;/ref&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama &amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==<br /> 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 &quot;hero&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Abandoned ==<br /> <br /> This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Page should be unlocked==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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: ''&quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> :::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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Age template==<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Referring to America in 3rd person? ==<br /> &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.&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)<br /> <br /> == Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==<br /> <br /> On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &quot;Insights&quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &quot;presumably&quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &quot;likely&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)<br /> <br /> == Needed updates for Turkey speech, &quot;no longer Christian&quot;, etc. ==<br /> <br /> I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:<br /> <br /> *update on Obama's &quot;no longer a Christian nation&quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=67735]<br /> *confirming that the &quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&quot; prediction came true (Turkey)<br /> *any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &quot;Islam is not the enemy&quot; type of content. <br /> <br /> Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...<br /> [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &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'''.&quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &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'''&quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> <br /> :::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: 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.<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period. <br /> In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[16]<br /> <br /> I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.<br /> <br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[21]<br /> <br /> If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said &quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&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.<br /> <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[22]<br /> <br /> Ok, it probably is &quot;compatible with the modern world&quot;. Why is this evidence he is Muslim.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::And your claim that &quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> == Dog ==<br /> <br /> Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==<br /> <br /> I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> == Kenya is not a muslim country. ==<br /> <br /> According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.<br /> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html<br /> So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli&diff=660476 2009-05-05T20:08:55Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Influence on Conservatives? ==<br /> <br /> :Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to &quot;Pocock&quot;, but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from. Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, &quot;We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do.&quot; The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was &quot;truly admirable in Machiavelli&quot; (the Discources), which are not at all &quot;Machiavellian&quot; (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that &quot;Principality easily becomes Tyranny.&quot; Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7B94yBtgAY&amp;sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=13&amp;ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::So his influence, I am to infer that his influence, on conservatives, is mainly that they used him to explain his influence on liberal Republicans? ''It has been a long day, Richard!'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 03:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::&quot;liberal&quot; in the 19th century sense, which is like libertarianism today. The influence on 2009 conservatives was this: Machiavelli's ideas on civic duty and opposition to corruption are deply engrained in America thanks to the idea of [[republicanism]]. It's a political philosophy after which the GOP names itself. Jefferson also called his party the &quot;Republican&quot; (or Democratic-Republican) party. RepublicISM means fears of tyranny, fear of corruption, distrust of politicians, and the need to be an active citizen, esp bear arms in wartime and vote in elections. We all share that today and (to a large degree) it comes from Machiavelli (and others too, but he was very important). This &quot;republican&quot; line of Machiavelli's thought is totally different from his line of thought in &quot;The Prince&quot; which advocates tyranny--he argued both black and white! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Sounds as if he would today be one of the highest ranking members of Congress......as the prerequisite is being able to argue both sides, while talking out of both sides of your mouth. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Was Machiavelli writing about his [[ideal]]s, i.e., what the best possible ruler ought to do? Or was he writing for his time and place? I heard that his ideas were meant to apply only to Italy of the early [[Renaissance]] era (which figured in several popular Shakespearean plays). <br /> <br /> :Wasn't he only offering specifically tailored and pragmatic advice rather than timeless &quot;do this everywhere and at all times&quot; principles? Does the idea of [[lesser of two evils]] apply?<br /> <br /> :In other words, did Machiavelli actually '''recommend''' that rulers be &quot;Machiavellian&quot;, as an ideal of government? I don't think so, any more than [[Pollyanna]] (in the book or even the Disney movie) practiced &quot;unreasonable or blind optimism.&quot; [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollyanna] And [[Uncle Tom]]'s attitude was never &quot;to curry favor with whites&quot; but was manifestly an expression of his Christian principles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Ed raises a very good point. Was M telling tyrants how to do it? or was he warning people &quot;if you don't have a republic you will get a tyrant and here's how he will mistreat you.&quot; Scholars have been debating this for years and no one is sure. I incline to the &quot;warning&quot; side because in fact no tyrant needs his advice--they do it naturally, but good citizens do need to be warned. ...speaking of Shakespeare: Macbeth teaches the audience exactly how to be a bad king, but nobody says Shaks. was writing a guidebook for tyrants. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Likewise, [[Hamlet]] shows how to fulfill the classic Greek ideal of avenging your father's murder, but for me it's a lesson in the [[unintended consequences]]. The prince murders his girlfriend's father (which drives her to suicide) - bad start for a poorly thought-out plan. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We don't even want to go there, Ed....Hamlet, and his ''issues''! Good morning, BTW. :-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> RJJensen, I appreciate your clarification, but where do you get your claim that Machiavelli influence any conservatives, or conservative thought? I have never, ever, ever heard a single conservative cite Machiavelli in any way, except perhaps to criticize Machiavellianism (and even that mention is almost non-existent).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::not many people these days read Machiavelli's Discourses, but the Founding Fathers all did, and they incorporated his ideas directly and those that came via the English &quot;country party&quot;. Ideas like service in the militia, for example, also come from him--and especially the idea that politicians are power-hungry princes that have to be watched at all times. Lots of conservative intellectual powerhouses write about him--for example Leo Strauss and the Straussians (Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Harvey Mansfield) also Willmore Kendall, Paul Rahe, Gordon Wood, and several National review writers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: I just searched the Federalist Papers, the voluminous explanation and defense of our constitutional system by our Founders, and there is not a single reference to Machiavelli or Machiavellian. As to your list of &quot;conservative intellectual powerhouses,&quot; I don't recognize any of them as being Reagan-type conservatives. Harvey Mansfield may come closest, but I'd be surprised if he were conservative on most leading social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: However, there is also not a single reference to John Locke, who was an enormously large influence, in the Federalist Papers. As for Ed's question, it's believe it's generally accepted that Machiavelli was writing for the specific circumstances of a fractured Italy, as he desired an enlightened prince to unify it through necessary means and then give control to a new republican body. By the way, can anyone explain why I was blocked for engaging in this discussion? [[User:PAuber|PAuber]] 12:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Well, fine, but there's no doubt that Locke influenced the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., [http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/timeline/chronology.html] There is doubt about Machiavelli's influence on them.<br /> <br /> ::::: I see no record of your being blocked, but you will be blocked if you continue to delete information from the lectures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I don't think Jensen was saying Machiavelli ''himself'' was an influence, but that one or two of the ideas he advocated was also adopted by the [[Founding Fathers]]. So a search of the author's name won't show anything. <br /> <br /> RJ, could you expound again on the ideas which Machiavelli and the Founders ''both'' liked? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Responding to Ed-- M's influence can be seen in the ideas that the good citizen has to watch out for politicians, &amp; has to take part in politics. M. was the major porponent of the citizens militia (as oppose to standing armies or mercenries) as the best defense and the need for citizens to join the militia (which is now the National Guard). The argument by historians is that Machiavelli had a major direct influence on the English &quot;country party&quot; which provided the main intellectual base for the American Revolution. That is, Americans absorb Machiavelli, Locke, Hume, Harrington, Montesquieu etc through the founding fathers rather than by directly reading these people in 2009.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: The flaw in that argument is that Machiavelli was long viewed with disdain, while the other political philosophers were not. Moreover, there's nothing special about an armed citizenry that should be attributed to Machiavelli in particular, as opposed to countless others political commentators going back to feudal times who felt the same way.<br /> <br /> ::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of &quot;neoconservatives.&quot; Now it's '''machiavellianism''' that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::Thanks for the stimulus :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A parting shot, not intended to re-open a closed issue: <br /> *Perhaps Machiavelli was evading censorship by clothing his critique in (apparent) praise. I gather [[Jonathan Swift]] used satire to get political points across in the era before [[freedom of press]] became the norm in the Christian West. If so, then I guess we can thank God that we now live in an era where we can speak our minds (even in an international forum such as this encyclopedia-writing project) without fear of retribution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Featured article ==<br /> <br /> This is an excellent pick for being a featured article - everyone who's worked on this - RJJenson especially- awesome job.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:39, 2 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> The introduction contains some biased language and comments and I created an account specifically because it does not appear to be objective. I acknowledge this site has a conservative viewpoint but comments like &quot;the best prose writer&quot; are completely unnecessary and could easily be changed into &quot;considered one of the best prose writers of his time in Italy, Mr/Ms. X writes &quot;abc Machiavelli's magnificent prose style xyz.&quot; Furthermore, as a student who has studied Machiavelli, I found some comments to be incorrect. For example, &quot;which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; whereby a ruler can gain power (the &quot;means&quot;) in any deceitful or unjust manner possible in order to achieve his often undisclosed goals (the &quot;end&quot;)&quot; is very poorly done. A) according to Machiavelli a just Prince would be morally justified in taking power because the betterment of citizen's lives justified the Prince's sordid means. Furthermore, a true Machiavellian Prince would not need to &quot;disclose&quot; it's goals as role, and goals, of a true Prince were already outlined by Machiavelli. Other statements such as &quot;For that matter, no tyrant has ever needed the book to get ideas how to oppress people&quot; and &quot;Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. The Prince was a warning that it could happen like this if citizens let down their guard&quot; and other non-cited statements of speculation don't contribute to the article. Lastly, the statement &quot;major positive influence of&quot; is unclear as it does not illustrate what a &quot;positive&quot; influence is and is thus vacuous. --- {{unsigned|Sardonac}} --- 21:49, 4 May 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> ::thanks for the comments. The section was written by a professional historian and should pass muster for a popular encyclopedia. For example, the prose style is widely hailed. The article reflects the current scholarly literature that is cited. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Mr. Sardonicus must be bored up there north of you in Toronto, Richard. I know that you, like me, cannot wait to see their substantial contributions here, to match their obviously ponderous intellect. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary. Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing. All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject. Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor. Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article in order that it remain as strictly factual as possible.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli&diff=660474 2009-05-05T20:08:30Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Influence on Conservatives? ==<br /> <br /> :Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to &quot;Pocock&quot;, but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from. Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, &quot;We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do.&quot; The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was &quot;truly admirable in Machiavelli&quot; (the Discources), which are not at all &quot;Machiavellian&quot; (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that &quot;Principality easily becomes Tyranny.&quot; Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7B94yBtgAY&amp;sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=13&amp;ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::So his influence, I am to infer that his influence, on conservatives, is mainly that they used him to explain his influence on liberal Republicans? ''It has been a long day, Richard!'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 03:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::&quot;liberal&quot; in the 19th century sense, which is like libertarianism today. The influence on 2009 conservatives was this: Machiavelli's ideas on civic duty and opposition to corruption are deply engrained in America thanks to the idea of [[republicanism]]. It's a political philosophy after which the GOP names itself. Jefferson also called his party the &quot;Republican&quot; (or Democratic-Republican) party. RepublicISM means fears of tyranny, fear of corruption, distrust of politicians, and the need to be an active citizen, esp bear arms in wartime and vote in elections. We all share that today and (to a large degree) it comes from Machiavelli (and others too, but he was very important). This &quot;republican&quot; line of Machiavelli's thought is totally different from his line of thought in &quot;The Prince&quot; which advocates tyranny--he argued both black and white! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Sounds as if he would today be one of the highest ranking members of Congress......as the prerequisite is being able to argue both sides, while talking out of both sides of your mouth. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Was Machiavelli writing about his [[ideal]]s, i.e., what the best possible ruler ought to do? Or was he writing for his time and place? I heard that his ideas were meant to apply only to Italy of the early [[Renaissance]] era (which figured in several popular Shakespearean plays). <br /> <br /> :Wasn't he only offering specifically tailored and pragmatic advice rather than timeless &quot;do this everywhere and at all times&quot; principles? Does the idea of [[lesser of two evils]] apply?<br /> <br /> :In other words, did Machiavelli actually '''recommend''' that rulers be &quot;Machiavellian&quot;, as an ideal of government? I don't think so, any more than [[Pollyanna]] (in the book or even the Disney movie) practiced &quot;unreasonable or blind optimism.&quot; [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollyanna] And [[Uncle Tom]]'s attitude was never &quot;to curry favor with whites&quot; but was manifestly an expression of his Christian principles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Ed raises a very good point. Was M telling tyrants how to do it? or was he warning people &quot;if you don't have a republic you will get a tyrant and here's how he will mistreat you.&quot; Scholars have been debating this for years and no one is sure. I incline to the &quot;warning&quot; side because in fact no tyrant needs his advice--they do it naturally, but good citizens do need to be warned. ...speaking of Shakespeare: Macbeth teaches the audience exactly how to be a bad king, but nobody says Shaks. was writing a guidebook for tyrants. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Likewise, [[Hamlet]] shows how to fulfill the classic Greek ideal of avenging your father's murder, but for me it's a lesson in the [[unintended consequences]]. The prince murders his girlfriend's father (which drives her to suicide) - bad start for a poorly thought-out plan. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We don't even want to go there, Ed....Hamlet, and his ''issues''! Good morning, BTW. :-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> RJJensen, I appreciate your clarification, but where do you get your claim that Machiavelli influence any conservatives, or conservative thought? I have never, ever, ever heard a single conservative cite Machiavelli in any way, except perhaps to criticize Machiavellianism (and even that mention is almost non-existent).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::not many people these days read Machiavelli's Discourses, but the Founding Fathers all did, and they incorporated his ideas directly and those that came via the English &quot;country party&quot;. Ideas like service in the militia, for example, also come from him--and especially the idea that politicians are power-hungry princes that have to be watched at all times. Lots of conservative intellectual powerhouses write about him--for example Leo Strauss and the Straussians (Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Harvey Mansfield) also Willmore Kendall, Paul Rahe, Gordon Wood, and several National review writers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: I just searched the Federalist Papers, the voluminous explanation and defense of our constitutional system by our Founders, and there is not a single reference to Machiavelli or Machiavellian. As to your list of &quot;conservative intellectual powerhouses,&quot; I don't recognize any of them as being Reagan-type conservatives. Harvey Mansfield may come closest, but I'd be surprised if he were conservative on most leading social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: However, there is also not a single reference to John Locke, who was an enormously large influence, in the Federalist Papers. As for Ed's question, it's believe it's generally accepted that Machiavelli was writing for the specific circumstances of a fractured Italy, as he desired an enlightened prince to unify it through necessary means and then give control to a new republican body. By the way, can anyone explain why I was blocked for engaging in this discussion? [[User:PAuber|PAuber]] 12:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Well, fine, but there's no doubt that Locke influenced the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., [http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/timeline/chronology.html] There is doubt about Machiavelli's influence on them.<br /> <br /> ::::: I see no record of your being blocked, but you will be blocked if you continue to delete information from the lectures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I don't think Jensen was saying Machiavelli ''himself'' was an influence, but that one or two of the ideas he advocated was also adopted by the [[Founding Fathers]]. So a search of the author's name won't show anything. <br /> <br /> RJ, could you expound again on the ideas which Machiavelli and the Founders ''both'' liked? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Responding to Ed-- M's influence can be seen in the ideas that the good citizen has to watch out for politicians, &amp; has to take part in politics. M. was the major porponent of the citizens militia (as oppose to standing armies or mercenries) as the best defense and the need for citizens to join the militia (which is now the National Guard). The argument by historians is that Machiavelli had a major direct influence on the English &quot;country party&quot; which provided the main intellectual base for the American Revolution. That is, Americans absorb Machiavelli, Locke, Hume, Harrington, Montesquieu etc through the founding fathers rather than by directly reading these people in 2009.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: The flaw in that argument is that Machiavelli was long viewed with disdain, while the other political philosophers were not. Moreover, there's nothing special about an armed citizenry that should be attributed to Machiavelli in particular, as opposed to countless others political commentators going back to feudal times who felt the same way.<br /> <br /> ::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of &quot;neoconservatives.&quot; Now it's '''machiavellianism''' that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::Thanks for the stimulus :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A parting shot, not intended to re-open a closed issue: <br /> *Perhaps Machiavelli was evading censorship by clothing his critique in (apparent) praise. I gather [[Jonathan Swift]] used satire to get political points across in the era before [[freedom of press]] became the norm in the Christian West. If so, then I guess we can thank God that we now live in an era where we can speak our minds (even in an international forum such as this encyclopedia-writing project) without fear of retribution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Featured article ==<br /> <br /> This is an excellent pick for being a featured article - everyone who's worked on this - RJJenson especially- awesome job.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:39, 2 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> The introduction contains some biased language and comments and I created an account specifically because it does not appear to be objective. I acknowledge this site has a conservative viewpoint but comments like &quot;the best prose writer&quot; are completely unnecessary and could easily be changed into &quot;considered one of the best prose writers of his time in Italy, Mr/Ms. X writes &quot;abc Machiavelli's magnificent prose style xyz.&quot; Furthermore, as a student who has studied Machiavelli, I found some comments to be incorrect. For example, &quot;which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; whereby a ruler can gain power (the &quot;means&quot;) in any deceitful or unjust manner possible in order to achieve his often undisclosed goals (the &quot;end&quot;)&quot; is very poorly done. A) according to Machiavelli a just Prince would be morally justified in taking power because the betterment of citizen's lives justified the Prince's sordid means. Furthermore, a true Machiavellian Prince would not need to &quot;disclose&quot; it's goals as role, and goals, of a true Prince were already outlined by Machiavelli. Other statements such as &quot;For that matter, no tyrant has ever needed the book to get ideas how to oppress people&quot; and &quot;Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. The Prince was a warning that it could happen like this if citizens let down their guard&quot; and other non-cited statements of speculation don't contribute to the article. Lastly, the statement &quot;major positive influence of&quot; is unclear as it does not illustrate what a &quot;positive&quot; influence is and is thus vacuous. --- {{unsigned|Sardonac}} --- 21:49, 4 May 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> ::thanks for the comments. The section was written by a professional historian and should pass muster for a popular encyclopedia. For example, the prose style is widely hailed. The article reflects the current scholarly literature that is cited. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Mr. Sardonicus must be bored up there north of you in Toronto, Richard. I know that you, like me, cannot wait to see their substantial contributions here, to match their obviously ponderous intellect. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary. Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing. All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject. Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor. Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article to remain as strictly factual as possible.</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=660301 2009-05-05T05:21:40Z

<p>Sardonac: /* Obama/Muslim Support */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|TK}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Trip to Canada ==<br /> <br /> Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.<br /> <br /> Most telling, he declared &quot;I love this country [Canada]&quot; - has he ever even uttered such words about America?<br /> <br /> : *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Demanding Major Change ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;The trustworthy encyclopedia&quot; it has to convey both sides.<br /> <br /> As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.<br /> <br /> : It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small &quot;c&quot; want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :: 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> : I don't think you can &quot;demand&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.<br /> : 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.<br /> : It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:<br /> : '''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)<br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;evidence&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)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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 &quot;negotiations&quot; with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Atheism ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it &quot;as a choice, not an epiphany.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama&lt;/ref&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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama Arab-American ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;first openly black president&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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> :*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say &quot;first president with significantly ethnic roots&quot; or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small comments ==<br /> <br /> Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a &quot;family&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: Shall I go ahead then, and erase &quot;Family&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> == Lincoln's Bible? ==<br /> <br /> Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in &lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/&lt;/ref&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 &quot;likely muslim&quot; section?<br /> <br /> [[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;trickery&quot; a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the &quot;likely Christian&quot; section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)<br /> : 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 &quot;Manchurian Muslims&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)<br /> :::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> 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] <br /> <br /> Obama has espoused the idea of &quot;spreading the wealth,&quot;[10] <br /> 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]<br /> {{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009<br /> <br /> The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' &quot;is written from a Muslim point-of-view&quot; is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ==Picture==<br /> [[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Obama/Muslim Support ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> :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]<br /> <br /> <br /> That is not evidence for Obama being a Muslim and is a fallacy. I'd like to comment on some of the &quot;premise&quot; for Obama being a Muslim and illustrate some of their inadequacies and logical discrepancies. I would also like to point out, before I begin, that there is no discussion in this section regarding the controversy of these claims or their poor citation including tertiary sources like blogs.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[21] =&gt; This is a fallacious argument as it is only taking one side of an ambiguous statement while disregarding his frequent statements to the contrary.<br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[22][23] =&gt; This also proves nothing as a) none of the listed &quot;Muslim&quot; attributes of the president are expanded on and to state that 'few Muslims convert, and therefore he didn't' is a fallacy. Furthermore, it was not established that he was a Muslim, only that he was exposed to a Muslim community.<br /> * Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad,[24] which most Christians would not retain.[25] =&gt; This statement is pointless guesswork. My friend is Christian yet retains the last name Arulvarathon, does that implicate him as a Hindu? No. This is one of the more absurd &quot;premises.&quot;<br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[26] =&gt; This does not give proper context to the quotation. I understand a conservative bias to this website but this is borderline propaganda. <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[27] =&gt; I agree with that. To claim this as an argument for the president being a Muslim is a fallacy and does not recognize that other leaders, including the British Prime Minister, have stated the same thing.<br /> * Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is &quot;one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,&quot; and recited &quot;with a first-class Arabic accent&quot; the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....&quot;[28] =&gt; This is also a fallacy. Being well versed in something you do not believe is exactly what many atheists attempt to be with regards to scripture.<br /> * Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.[29] =&gt; Malcolm X is widely viewed as a freedom fighter and thus this statement relies upon being ambiguous. Even accepting its ambiguity it is dispelled by Obama's comments that he is a Christian.<br /> * 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.[30] =&gt; Once again, a fallacy.<br /> * Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.[31] =&gt; Proving nothing. It's nothing new for a politician to have sketchy ties to religion or appearing to be religious to win over votes, but it's a far greater leap to then claim the politician is of a specific faith.<br /> * On the campaign trail, Obama was reading &quot;The Post-American World&quot; by Fareed Zakaria,[32] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[33] =&gt; During high school we read translated logs of Nazi communications to understand the &quot;Nazi Mindset&quot; and outlook. I state this to help show how fallacious this premise is.<br /> * Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. =&gt; By this logic any person can be a Muslim. Furthermore, this does not prove that even if the president lying about his religious views it doesn't show how his lying advances the cause of Islam.<br /> * Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for &quot;Pakistan&quot; rather than the common American one.[34] =&gt; As do I. Using the traditional pronunciation for something in order to be as linguistically faithful as possible is not an indication of any attachment to a culture.<br /> * 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 &quot;churched&quot; in a 2007 speech: &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.'&quot;[35] =&gt; This premise effectively states &quot;he only took interest in becoming Christian when he realized it would be better if he went.&quot; Therefore he's Muslim? That's absurd.<br /> * Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam. [36] =&gt; I've worked with Muslims before too and I am not Muslim. These statements are getting progressively weaker.<br /> * Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name &quot;Renegade&quot;. &quot;Renegade&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 &quot;Christian turned Muslim.&quot;[37] =&gt; This definition changed in the 1660's. Furthermore, why would Obama put little bits of evidence like this? The author of this section seems to view the world as a game.<br /> * Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[38] &quot;Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history.&quot;[39] =&gt; Perhaps it was because he appeared to be the least anti-Muslim of either candidate. Or perhaps because there are more Muslims in the United States than ever before.<br /> * &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.&quot;[40][41] =&gt; This proves nothing. This is one of the weakest premises yet.<br /> * Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.[42][43] =&gt; Muslim in Origin but then again my first name is Buddhist. This is as poor as I've seen this website. I honestly hope quality improves in future.<br /> * 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. =&gt; Once again, this is not logical proof for Obama being a Muslim.<br /> <br /> President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009 =&gt; equally possible that this was merely a sign of respect. Furthermore, why would a devout Muslim bow? <br /> <br /> * 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.[44] 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, &quot;We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect.&quot;[45] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, &quot;It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah.&quot;[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.[49] 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.) =&gt; Besides the obvious bias in &quot;inexorable&quot; this doesn't show anything. It is not proper form for Yeomen to bow to the Queen of England but it is for King Abdullah. This is poor evidence.<br /> * Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram &quot;IHS&quot;, which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there[50] =&gt; This, also, is a poor premise that makes for an illogical conclusion.<br /> <br /> Obama tries to downplay his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a &quot;confirmed atheist&quot; before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.[51] 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.[52] =&gt; This is absurd. I don't feel the need to explain this.<br /> <br /> == I know we lost a week... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Low Res Pic ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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...&quot;Him.&quot; We might try the White House site again to see whether &quot;He&quot; has corrected this&amp;mdash;er&amp;mdash;oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::(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)<br /> <br /> == Second swearing in ceremony? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly &quot;private.&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!<br /> <br /> == Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==<br /> <br /> This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:<br /> <br /> ''Rejects ID''<br /> From the responses to a Q&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?<br /> <br /> 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. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''<br /> Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. &quot;It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain,&quot; Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of &quot;faith&quot; would hurt him a national election. &quot;Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Allegedly born in Honolulu ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Why no family section? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> [[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's &quot;anti-family,&quot; '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by &quot;anti-family,&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)<br /> <br /> == Some Changes ==<br /> <br /> Why is this locked?<br /> Obama has not been succeded by &quot;incumbent&quot; nor will he be.<br /> 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)<br /> :&quot;Incumbent&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)<br /> It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - &lt;s&gt;there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.&lt;/s&gt; - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Is he or isn't he President?==<br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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 &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&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)<br /> :::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)<br /> :::: 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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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 - &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America&quot;. Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> The article should begin with &quot;Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America.&quot; Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese&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)<br /> <br /> == Real Bible NOT Koran ==<br /> <br /> Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:<br /> <br /> “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.”<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;honor&quot; is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this &quot;swearing in on the Koran&quot; business because it is purely insulting speculation. <br /> ::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)<br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> == Incumbent ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;Sarah Palin&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’ “ <br /> ::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Stylistic matter ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;typical&quot; for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&amp;oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template &quot;typical&quot; for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from &quot;present&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;assumed office,&quot; &quot;incumbent&quot; and &quot;January 20, 2009.&quot; If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by &quot;present&quot; or &quot;incumbent.&quot; --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article Naming ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Joe&quot; Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009<br /> ::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. <br /> ::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. &quot;Sidney&quot; and &quot;Robinette&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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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. &quot;I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS.&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)<br /> <br /> == Change of wording? ==<br /> <br /> I think &quot;Obama will likely be the first Muslim President&quot; would be better written as &quot;Obama is likely the first Muslim President&quot; ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Update picture? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> :Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's religious outlook ==<br /> '''Obama's &quot;outlook is Muslim&quot;? That is simply not true'''<br /> <br /> The Obama article presently reads: &quot;Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion (&quot;pro-choice&quot;) ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: &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.&quot;[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm] <br /> <br /> 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: &quot;President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to &quot;overturn&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 &quot;gender&quot; issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&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: &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 &quot;morality&quot;.&quot;[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]<br /> <br /> I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama's Historical Ignorance ==<br /> <br /> The first statement in the Insights section claims that &quot;Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, &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.&quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor&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.<br /> <br /> Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.<br /> <br /> ==Rearranged content==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]<br /> <br /> :I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama &quot;may be&quot; before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::There you go again! &quot;Actually is&quot; ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what &quot;is&quot; -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define &quot;is&quot;? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|&lt;font color=&quot;#006666&quot; &gt;JArneal&lt;/font&gt;]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Obama and Sexism ==<br /> <br /> In the &quot;Presidential Campaign&quot; section of this article it states &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider.&quot; The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&quot; Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&amp;eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught...&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?<br /> <br /> And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a &quot;sexist&quot; smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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; 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)<br /> <br /> 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: &quot;Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner &amp; Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her.&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: &quot;Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider.&quot; The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being &quot;a woman and outsider&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)<br /> <br /> *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 &quot;lack of experience&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;sexist&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.<br /> <br /> &quot;Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called &quot;lack of experience&quot; even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. &quot;<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Tone&quot; section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}<br /> <br /> *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. &quot;Assume good faith&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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Category ==<br /> <br /> Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> *No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Minor Edits==<br /> There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the &quot;Birth certificate controversy&quot; section, the word &quot;intelligible&quot; should be &quot;ineligible&quot;. Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> :Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&lt;sup&gt;Hello!&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Flag Pin &quot;insights&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide &quot;adequate&quot; explanation. &quot;Adequate&quot; is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word &quot;presumably.&quot; Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word &quot;likely.&quot; Again, just an opinion. &quot;Recently&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:<br /> <br /> ''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that &quot;Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. &quot;It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country.&quot;[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.'' <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Michelle ==<br /> <br /> Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Religion... ==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI &quot;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&quot; --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian&lt;ref&gt;http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=11&amp;gl=us&lt;/ref&gt;. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::::: &quot;Pauline Christians&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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==== Affirmative Action Question ====<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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<br /> <br /> ::&lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> ::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.<br /> ::&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> ::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law&quot; and &quot;Obama's article was published because of his race.&quot; Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &lt;1% Correction ==<br /> <br /> The &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.&quot;'<br /> <br /> This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the &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 &lt;1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not &lt;1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.<br /> <br /> We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''<br /> to<br /> :''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''<br /> <br /> The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Obama's name in Arabic? ==<br /> <br /> Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up &quot;باراك حسين أوباما&quot;<br /> <br /> Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be<br /> <br /> &quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) &quot; [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Hussein&quot; and &quot;Barack&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:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'''<br /> بارك حسین اوباما''' <br /> <br /> I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> [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.<br /> <br /> :''He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:<br /> <br /> :''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.”''<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> :''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''<br /> <br /> NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;compatible&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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == More religion ==<br /> <br /> The intro states that Obama &quot;chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.&quot; His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath &quot;real.&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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;real,&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 &quot;chose not use&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 &quot;chose not to&quot; use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be &quot;The Trustworthy Encyclopedia&quot; if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Dantes&quot;, your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama &quot;chose not to use&quot; a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was &quot;real, valid and legally binding,&quot; then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: 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: &quot;Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!&quot; [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: 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:<br /> :::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.<br /> :::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he &quot;chose not to use&quot; a bible.<br /> :::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he &quot;chose not to.&quot; There's no extant source to back this up<br /> :::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction<br /> :::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;there's no disputing&quot; something isn't the same as proving it.<br /> <br /> ::::: As to the &quot;real&quot; oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a &quot;superabundance of caution,&quot; not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A &quot;seeker of truth&quot; would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==<br /> Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. &lt;br&gt;''&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.&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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==<br /> I would like to add this text right before the &quot;Campaign financing&quot; secion:<br /> :During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of &quot;working families.&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?” &lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html&lt;/ref&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama &amp; Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==<br /> 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 &quot;hero&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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> == Abandoned ==<br /> <br /> This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Page should be unlocked==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> *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: ''&quot;If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.&quot;'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> :::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''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Age template==<br /> <br /> 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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Referring to America in 3rd person? ==<br /> &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.&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)<br /> <br /> == Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==<br /> <br /> On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the &quot;Insights&quot; section says that he ceased wearing one because it &quot;presumably&quot; would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being &quot;likely&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)<br /> <br /> == Needed updates for Turkey speech, &quot;no longer Christian&quot;, etc. ==<br /> <br /> I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:<br /> <br /> *update on Obama's &quot;no longer a Christian nation&quot; comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=67735]<br /> *confirming that the &quot;speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days&quot; prediction came true (Turkey)<br /> *any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the &quot;Islam is not the enemy&quot; type of content. <br /> <br /> Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...<br /> [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, &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'''.&quot; [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: &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'''&quot;? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> <br /> :::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: 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.<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period. <br /> In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br /> <br /> * Obama declared in prepared remarks, &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.&quot;[16]<br /> <br /> I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.<br /> <br /> * Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> * Obama recently mentioned his religion as &quot;my Muslim faith.&quot;[21]<br /> <br /> If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said &quot;John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith&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.<br /> <br /> * He has said that &quot;Islam can be compatible with the modern world.&quot;[22]<br /> <br /> Ok, it probably is &quot;compatible with the modern world&quot;. Why is this evidence he is Muslim.<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::And your claim that &quot;Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent&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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> == Dog ==<br /> <br /> Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==<br /> <br /> I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> == Kenya is not a muslim country. ==<br /> <br /> According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.<br /> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html<br /> So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)</div>

Sardonac https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli&diff=660294 2009-05-05T04:49:21Z

<p>Sardonac: </p> <hr /> <div>::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Influence on Conservatives? ==<br /> <br /> :Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to &quot;Pocock&quot;, but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from. Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's ''Prince'' and ''Discourses on Livy,'' based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, &quot;We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do.&quot; The ''Discourses'' had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. [[User:PaulAuber|PaulAuber]] 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Yes Paul is right. The ''Discourses'' are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that ''The prince'' is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was &quot;truly admirable in Machiavelli&quot; (the Discources), which are not at all &quot;Machiavellian&quot; (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that &quot;Principality easily becomes Tyranny.&quot; Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on [http://books.google.com/books?id=RoW4qbnc6t8C&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=machiavelli+discources+conservatives&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7B94yBtgAY&amp;sig=Jz_eIVEeziK2NdLn9RMZFA7cARE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=hX_ESf6pGoKOsQPNoKXgBg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=13&amp;ct=result ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy''] Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::So his influence, I am to infer that his influence, on conservatives, is mainly that they used him to explain his influence on liberal Republicans? ''It has been a long day, Richard!'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 03:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::::&quot;liberal&quot; in the 19th century sense, which is like libertarianism today. The influence on 2009 conservatives was this: Machiavelli's ideas on civic duty and opposition to corruption are deply engrained in America thanks to the idea of [[republicanism]]. It's a political philosophy after which the GOP names itself. Jefferson also called his party the &quot;Republican&quot; (or Democratic-Republican) party. RepublicISM means fears of tyranny, fear of corruption, distrust of politicians, and the need to be an active citizen, esp bear arms in wartime and vote in elections. We all share that today and (to a large degree) it comes from Machiavelli (and others too, but he was very important). This &quot;republican&quot; line of Machiavelli's thought is totally different from his line of thought in &quot;The Prince&quot; which advocates tyranny--he argued both black and white! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Sounds as if he would today be one of the highest ranking members of Congress......as the prerequisite is being able to argue both sides, while talking out of both sides of your mouth. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Was Machiavelli writing about his [[ideal]]s, i.e., what the best possible ruler ought to do? Or was he writing for his time and place? I heard that his ideas were meant to apply only to Italy of the early [[Renaissance]] era (which figured in several popular Shakespearean plays). <br /> <br /> :Wasn't he only offering specifically tailored and pragmatic advice rather than timeless &quot;do this everywhere and at all times&quot; principles? Does the idea of [[lesser of two evils]] apply?<br /> <br /> :In other words, did Machiavelli actually '''recommend''' that rulers be &quot;Machiavellian&quot;, as an ideal of government? I don't think so, any more than [[Pollyanna]] (in the book or even the Disney movie) practiced &quot;unreasonable or blind optimism.&quot; [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollyanna] And [[Uncle Tom]]'s attitude was never &quot;to curry favor with whites&quot; but was manifestly an expression of his Christian principles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Ed raises a very good point. Was M telling tyrants how to do it? or was he warning people &quot;if you don't have a republic you will get a tyrant and here's how he will mistreat you.&quot; Scholars have been debating this for years and no one is sure. I incline to the &quot;warning&quot; side because in fact no tyrant needs his advice--they do it naturally, but good citizens do need to be warned. ...speaking of Shakespeare: Macbeth teaches the audience exactly how to be a bad king, but nobody says Shaks. was writing a guidebook for tyrants. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Likewise, [[Hamlet]] shows how to fulfill the classic Greek ideal of avenging your father's murder, but for me it's a lesson in the [[unintended consequences]]. The prince murders his girlfriend's father (which drives her to suicide) - bad start for a poorly thought-out plan. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::We don't even want to go there, Ed....Hamlet, and his ''issues''! Good morning, BTW. :-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> RJJensen, I appreciate your clarification, but where do you get your claim that Machiavelli influence any conservatives, or conservative thought? I have never, ever, ever heard a single conservative cite Machiavelli in any way, except perhaps to criticize Machiavellianism (and even that mention is almost non-existent).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::not many people these days read Machiavelli's Discourses, but the Founding Fathers all did, and they incorporated his ideas directly and those that came via the English &quot;country party&quot;. Ideas like service in the militia, for example, also come from him--and especially the idea that politicians are power-hungry princes that have to be watched at all times. Lots of conservative intellectual powerhouses write about him--for example Leo Strauss and the Straussians (Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Harvey Mansfield) also Willmore Kendall, Paul Rahe, Gordon Wood, and several National review writers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: I just searched the Federalist Papers, the voluminous explanation and defense of our constitutional system by our Founders, and there is not a single reference to Machiavelli or Machiavellian. As to your list of &quot;conservative intellectual powerhouses,&quot; I don't recognize any of them as being Reagan-type conservatives. Harvey Mansfield may come closest, but I'd be surprised if he were conservative on most leading social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::: However, there is also not a single reference to John Locke, who was an enormously large influence, in the Federalist Papers. As for Ed's question, it's believe it's generally accepted that Machiavelli was writing for the specific circumstances of a fractured Italy, as he desired an enlightened prince to unify it through necessary means and then give control to a new republican body. By the way, can anyone explain why I was blocked for engaging in this discussion? [[User:PAuber|PAuber]] 12:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Well, fine, but there's no doubt that Locke influenced the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., [http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/timeline/chronology.html] There is doubt about Machiavelli's influence on them.<br /> <br /> ::::: I see no record of your being blocked, but you will be blocked if you continue to delete information from the lectures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I don't think Jensen was saying Machiavelli ''himself'' was an influence, but that one or two of the ideas he advocated was also adopted by the [[Founding Fathers]]. So a search of the author's name won't show anything. <br /> <br /> RJ, could you expound again on the ideas which Machiavelli and the Founders ''both'' liked? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Responding to Ed-- M's influence can be seen in the ideas that the good citizen has to watch out for politicians, &amp; has to take part in politics. M. was the major porponent of the citizens militia (as oppose to standing armies or mercenries) as the best defense and the need for citizens to join the militia (which is now the National Guard). The argument by historians is that Machiavelli had a major direct influence on the English &quot;country party&quot; which provided the main intellectual base for the American Revolution. That is, Americans absorb Machiavelli, Locke, Hume, Harrington, Montesquieu etc through the founding fathers rather than by directly reading these people in 2009.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: The flaw in that argument is that Machiavelli was long viewed with disdain, while the other political philosophers were not. Moreover, there's nothing special about an armed citizenry that should be attributed to Machiavelli in particular, as opposed to countless others political commentators going back to feudal times who felt the same way.<br /> <br /> ::::::: Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of &quot;neoconservatives.&quot; Now it's '''machiavellianism''' that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::Thanks for the stimulus :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A parting shot, not intended to re-open a closed issue: <br /> *Perhaps Machiavelli was evading censorship by clothing his critique in (apparent) praise. I gather [[Jonathan Swift]] used satire to get political points across in the era before [[freedom of press]] became the norm in the Christian West. If so, then I guess we can thank God that we now live in an era where we can speak our minds (even in an international forum such as this encyclopedia-writing project) without fear of retribution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Featured article ==<br /> <br /> This is an excellent pick for being a featured article - everyone who's worked on this - RJJenson especially- awesome job.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:39, 2 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> The introduction contains some biased language and comments and I created an account specifically because it does not appear to be objective. I acknowledge this site has a conservative viewpoint but comments like &quot;the best prose writer&quot; are completely unnecessary and could easily be changed into &quot;considered one of the best prose writers of his time in Italy, Mr/Ms. X writes &quot;abc Machiavelli's magnificent prose style xyz.&quot; Furthermore, as a student who has studied Machiavelli, I found some comments to be incorrect. For example, &quot;which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the &quot;end justifies the means,&quot; whereby a ruler can gain power (the &quot;means&quot;) in any deceitful or unjust manner possible in order to achieve his often undisclosed goals (the &quot;end&quot;)&quot; is very poorly done. A) according to Machiavelli a just Prince would be morally justified in taking power because the betterment of citizen's lives justified the Prince's sordid means. Furthermore, a true Machiavellian Prince would not need to &quot;disclose&quot; it's goals as role, and goals, of a true Prince were already outlined by Machiavelli. Other statements such as &quot;For that matter, no tyrant has ever needed the book to get ideas how to oppress people&quot; and &quot;Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. The Prince was a warning that it could happen like this if citizens let down their guard&quot; and non-cited statements of speculation. Lastly, the statement &quot;major positive influence of&quot; is unclear as it does not illustrate what a &quot;positive&quot; influence is and is thus vacuous.</div>

Sardonac